The blogspot version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Australian Politics, Socialized Medicine, Recipes, Food & Health Skeptic, Tongue Tied, Immigration Watch. and Education Watch. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is accessible here.
****************************************************************************************



31 July, 2008

McCain ahead?

Barack Obama conceded yesterday that US voters were nervous about making him their next president as fresh polls showed him in an increasingly tight race against John McCain, his Republican rival. The Democratic candidate sought to explain why he has not seen a significant bounce in the polls after his international tour last week - with a new survey showing Mr McCain taking a lead for the first time since Mr Obama secured his party's nomination. Mr Obama's aides say that it is relatively early in the general election cycle, but there is a growing anxiousness about why he is not doing better against Mr McCain, who has so far run an unimpressive, disjointed and at times shambolic campaign.

The Democrat said that voters were still sizing him up and that his candidacy was "new for them, new for us as a country. "This is going to be a close election for a long time because I'm new on the national scene and people sort of like what they see but they're still not sure." But he added: "The odds of us winning are very good."

Most recent surveys show Mr Obama about six points ahead, but stuck several points below the 50 per cent threshold. A USA Today/Gallup poll yesterday showed the Republican four points ahead - 49 per cent to 45 per cent - among likely voters, in the first poll taken since the Democrat's overseas tour. It showed a surge since last month among likely Republican voters, suggesting that the trip might have galvanised them.

What concerns Mr Obama's supporters is that by every measure he should be doing much better. In generic polls, voters overwhelmingly want a Democrat in the White House next year and a record number believe that the country is on the wrong track.

The Illinois senator is running a sharp, disciplined campaign - often setting the day's agenda - with Mr McCain appearing slow-footed and reactive. Yet in recent polls the message is clear: voters may want change, but they are uneasy about Mr Obama. Both campaigns admit that the election is becoming a referendum on Mr Obama, testing the willingness of voters to overcome their doubts about a 46-year-old African-American with little political experience, to whom many find it hard to relate.

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last week, half of those questioned said that they were focused on what sort of president Mr Obama would be, with just a quarter focused on what kind of leader Mr McCain would be. Asked who was the riskier choice, 55per cent said Mr Obama, to just 35per cent who said the same of his rival.

In a private conference call with supporters last week, Steve Schmidt, Mr McCain's chief strategist, vowed to sharpen attacks on Mr Obama and to try to increase the perception that he is a risk.

Mr McCain, who at 71 is the oldest US presidential candidate in history, said last week: "They need a steady hand on the tiller. That's what I'm going to convince them of."

He has also begun to attack Mr Obama's patriotism. In a new advertisement the Republican campaign pounced on Mr Obama's decision to call off a visit to wounded US troops in Germany. "He made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras," the narrator says. The Obama camp countered that the visit had been scrapped amid concerns that it would appear too political.

Nagging at Mr Obama are memories of his big defeats to Hillary Clinton in the later stages of their primary battle, when white, working-class voters turned their backs on him.

Source




Hope? Change? Yes! Hope Obama Changes!

By Prof. Barry Rubin

Barack Obama has been to the Middle East. He said he supported Israel and wanted peace. So I guess everything's ok, right? Well, if he's elected president and follows through on these words that'll be just fine. But concern about an Obama presidency is hardly dispelled, except in the media systematically ignoring the real issues. Without getting into the debate over Iraq strategy, here are the serious problems:

Obama claims there is a "window of opportunity" for successful Israel-Palestinian negotiations. That's nonsense. But won't Obama pretend progress and "prove" he's right: by demanding unilateral Israeli concessions? Equally, Palestinian intransigence won't prompt him to admit they're responsible for failure. This isn't a window of opportunity but a doorway to disaster. Consider this simple question: If Israel withdrew from all the West Bank would anything really change? Would the Palestinians reciprocate, alter their line, stop terrorism, and accept the conflict's end? No.

In this context, Obama's emerging campaign theme is especially worrisome. He criticizes Bush for not jumping into a peace process from his term's start. The reason, of course, was President Bill Clinton's discovery that Palestinian leaders weren't interested in peace. Obama doesn't understand why the 1990s' process failed or that you don't commit the president's prestige unless there's a real chance for progress.

Obama thinks it "pro-Israel" to argue that Israel desperately needs peace with the Palestinians above all and that he'd do Israel a favor by pressuring it into concessions. But Israel only benefits from an agreement producing stability, the conflict's end, no cross-border terrorism, and a moderate Palestinian state. Obama's approach seems likely to turn into a peace-at-any-price scenario on the pretext of saving Israel in spite of itself. Obama thinks he knows best about Israel's security needs.

Obama remarked that Israel's government is weak and "the Palestinians are divided between Fatah and Hamas. And so it's difficult for either side to make the bold move needed" for peace. He believes there's no problem with Fatah being eager for peace whereas its own radicalism--not divisions--is the roadblock. Even if one believes his thesis, since Obama can't solve Palestinian or Israeli political divisions, which he equates as the equal barriers to progress, how's he possibly going to advance peace?

Meanwhile, he totally misstates--and presumably misunderstands--Israeli politics. If the Palestinians were willing, Israel's government could easily move ahead. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's alleged corruption is a big issue but the coalition agrees on peace steps. Far from shrinking back, Olmert and his government see making progress as the key to popularity and survival. In contrast, the PA knows that the actions needed to make a deal would be its downfall. That's the critical difference.

Does Obama really understand that the region's central issue is a war with radical forces who seek to overthrow every regime and seize control of the area? He emphasizes al-Qaida as the threat thus neglecting Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, and the Muslim Brothers? Are they potential allies if only treated nicely?

His new gimmick--I'm for fighting harder in Afghanistan and less in Iraq--is foolish. Whatever one thinks of Iraq, Afghanistan is far harder. U.S. policy has a chance to help create a stable regime in Iraq but not in Afghanistan. And does Obama really intend to be a hawk on the Afghan front or is this a cheap trick to show him as being tough? I'll bet on the latter explanation.

There's no indication Obama understands the need to defend Lebanon against a takeover by Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Obama's last statement on Lebanon actually endorsed Hizballah's position, due either to ignorance or his philosophy of avoiding confrontation at all costs.

If Obama wants to make the United States and the West more independent of Middle East instability or radical blackmail, at least in the long term, he'd favor extensive oil drilling on U.S. territory, which he doesn't.

The real issue is not that he wants to talk to Iran and Syria but what he'll offer them and what he'll conclude when they reject or sabotage his efforts? Obama says his "willingness to negotiate" would expose Tehran by stripping "away whatever excuses they may have, [and] whatever rationales may exist in the international community for not ratcheting up sanctions and taking serious action." Isn't that what the Bush administration did last week and Europeans have been doing for years? Do we really believe Obama just wants to have talks as a trap so he then can get tough?

Obama says the right things on Iran nuclear but can he actually be counted on to stop Tehran? Asked about an Israel attack he replies, "My goal is to avoid being confronted with that hypothetical."? Yet his more likely avoidance strategy would be to block the attack, not force Iran to back down. He claims U.S. policy failed because it didn't "follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime." Clearly, he's not familiar with the history which contradicts that assertion.

Won't radicals conclude he's so weak (or even sympathetic) that they can walk all over him and get away with it? Do we think they're wrong? Does he really understand the use of force, deterrence, the stick as well as the carrot? That doesn't fit his record and ideology.

It comes down to this: Do you really believe Obama has the understanding, toughness, and worldview needed to deal with the extremists or that they will eat his poor allies for lunch and him for dinner? There are thus two options:

Option A: Obama becomes president and hope he does a good job, perhaps after a three-year, possibly costly, learning process.

Option B: We won't have to find out whether the previous sentence will come true.

Source




President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour



Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee.

Fresh from his presidential-style world tour, during which foreign leaders and American generals lined up to show him affection, Obama settled down to some presidential-style business in Washington yesterday. He ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally.

Along the way, he traveled in a bubble more insulating than the actual president's. Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about town in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities, which included a fundraiser at the Mayflower where donors paid $10,000 or more to have photos taken with him. His schedule for the day, announced Monday night, would have made Dick Cheney envious:

11:00 a.m.: En route TBA.
12:05 p.m.: En route TBA.
1:45 p.m.: En route TBA.
2:55 p.m.: En route TBA.
5:20 p.m.: En route TBA.

The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls -- just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service hustled him in through a side door -- just as they do for the actual president.

Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.

Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.

More here




The Debate McCain Must Force

Have you noticed a change in Barack Obama's campaign? Instead of avoiding controversies over values, religion and race, he seems to welcome them and wade into the debates with an increasing enthusiasm. Characterizing how the Republicans will attack him, he predicted that they would criticize his "funny name" and add "and by the way, did you notice that he's black?" Obama used to go out of his way to avoid this kind of reference, but now he brings it on. Deliberately. Why?

Obama and the conservative right are mutually trying to keep the debate about his candidacy on the existential level -- is he the hope for America's future or a Manchurian Candidate, a kind of sleeper agent sent to destroy our democracy? That debate, which pits Obama's rhetoric against the Rev. Wright's rantings, is a contest that could go on all day, and Obama would win it. It is simply a bridge too far to believe that Obama is that evil and that invidious. But the more the debate covers such fundamental questions, the more it ignores the details -- details which could bring Obama down.

Quite simply, Obama would rather address his religious views and his optimism about America and his embrace of diversity than talk about his plans to raise taxes, let gasoline prices soar and socialize healthcare. In our new book, Fleeced, we try to bring the debate back down to earth, focusing on the specific plans that Obama has announced during his presidential primary campaign and discussing the consequences. This is the debate Barack Obama hopes he can avoid. Consider his proposals:

In effect, he would legislate a 60 percent tax bracket for upper-income Americans, killing all initiative and innovation. He'd raise the top bracket to 40 percent. He'd apply FICA taxes to all income, not just that under $100,000 as at present. So add 40 percent plus FICA's 12.5 percent plus Medicare's 2 percent plus state and local taxes averaging, after deduction, at 5-6 percent, and you have a 60 percent bracket.

He would double the capital gains tax, saddling the 50 percent of Americans who own stock with dramatically higher taxes. He'd double the dividend tax, hitting elderly coupon-clippers now retired and depending on fixed incomes.

He wants to cover 12 million illegal immigrants with federally subsidized health insurance, dramatically driving up costs and forcing federal rationing of healthcare. As in the U.K. and Canada, you will not be permitted certain medical procedures if the bureaucrats decide you are not worth it.

He proposes requiring Homeland Security operatives to notify terror suspects that they are under investigation within seven days of starting the investigation. He says that unless they can establish that there is "probable cause to believe that a certain individual is linked to a specific terrorist group," Homeland Security cannot seize his documents and search his business. The current standard is only that the search be "relevant" to a terror investigation.

He does not oppose $5-per-gallon gasoline but only says that he wishes there had been a more "gradual adjustment" to the higher prices.

Obama can talk about the Rev. Wright and flag lapel pins and his wife's love of America all day long. But what he resists is a specific discussion of his own plans for our country. That's the discussion he fears and he avoids. And it's the discussion John McCain must force upon him if he is to have any realistic chance of winning the election.

Source




What Has Obama Accomplished?

By Richard Cohen

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam War POW to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.

But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position, virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate, and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.

Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position back when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular, and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.

And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once it (or he) becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)

All politicians change their positions, sometimes even because they have changed their mind. McCain must have suffered excruciating whiplash from totally reversing himself on George Bush's tax cuts. He has denounced preachers he later embraced and then, to his chagrin, has had to denounce them all over again. This plasticity has a label: Pandering. McCain knows how it's done.

But Obama has shown that in this area, youth is no handicap. He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol -- a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.

Obama is often likened to John F. Kennedy. It makes sense. He has the requisite physical qualities -- handsome, lean, etc. -- plus wit, intelligence, awesome speaking abilities and a literary bent. He also might be compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt for many of those same qualities. Both FDR and JFK were disparaged early on by their contemporaries for, I think, doing the difficult and making it look easy. Eleanor Roosevelt, playing off the title of Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, airily dismissed him as more profile than courage. Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.

My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him. Still, the record now, while tissue thin, is troubling. The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen.

The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.

Source




Obama and the Affirmative Action Media

By James Lewis

Sometimes it's important to state the obvious, as George Orwell urged in another era of big lies and Political Correctness. It's obvious that the media are in the bag for Obama for one big reason, and one reason only: his race. The media have adopted liberal race bias as it is practiced on hundreds of campuses, in newsrooms all over, and in corporations galore. It's "affirmative" race discrimination, but it's still completely arbitrary favoritism based on skin color.

There's something profoundly wrong with that. It offends our sense of fair play. When governments behave this way it's a flagrant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Every time normal people get a chance to vote, they vote against it. Even leftwing Supreme Court justices say that affirmative action is only a "temporary" fix for a history of discrimination against blacks.

But that's a lie. The race industry will never let go; on the contrary, they are including ever-more victim groups. The gender industry came in on top of the civil rights movement, and the sexual minority establishment rode in on the back of feminism. Hispanics and illegals are going to be the next big victim groups. From anti-black discrimination to anti-white discrimination -- where's the progress?

"To the victor belong the spoils" said the ancient Romans, and today, we have a political spoils system again. The Left hands out all the loot wherever it takes power. An Obama presidency will build up that race-and-gender spoils system, not pahes it out.

Divide-and-conquer is the basic Leftist strategy. Divide by race, gender, sexual habits, and anything else you can talk people into. That's what "identity politics" is all about. So the Left will inevitably dig in more deeply if Barack and Michelle get into power. It's going to be race politics forever -- only the victim class has changed.

The year 2008 is therefore an historic moment in the downward slide of race relations. Yes, it would be fine to elect a black president -- if he were well qualified. But Barack Obama is so unqualified compared to John McCain that we have a clear case of affirmative action of the worst kind, the kind that selects your brain surgeon on the basis of race rather than performance. Do you think a wartime president needs any less experience, talent, training, character and commitment than a surgeon? If the doctor blows an operation, somebody could die. But if the next president blows it, we all could.

The media are dominated by the Left. They contribute to the Left on a 100-to-1 basis. It's not news any more when a Clinton operative like George Stephanopoulos becomes a TV "news" anchor for a major network. Such corruption is now taken for granted. We expect it. And yet the revolving door between the Democrats and the media constitutes the worst kind of influence peddling, just like stacking the judiciary with Leftist ideologues.

When the Sixties Left took over American culture, it institutionalized ideological favoritism. "Affirmative action" has now created a race/gender/sexual minority spoils system, as bad as the spoils system that used to flourish In government jobs. In the 19th century it used to be the party in power that appointed all the bureaucrats during its term. That was pretty bad, but at least the voters could throw the rascals out and a new set of job-seekers would get their chance. Today it's almost exclusively liberal blacks, women, gays, and Hispanics who are favored in education, hiring and promotion. That is why universities practice speech censorship, why Global Frauding is pushed by corrupt "scientists," and why Dr. Larry Summers was fired as President of Harvard just for telling the truth about young mathematics geniuses. The gay lobby insists on its Divine right to infiltrate the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church is wallowing in priestly pedophile scandals, and all sources of duly constituted authority have been rendered helpless.

That is the real meaning of the media's one-sided propaganda for Obama. The Berlin Victory Celebration would be impossible in a free media market. But the newsies don't even care that they're caught stealing from the cookie jar. Nobody is going to fire the media apparatchiks for supporting Obama.

The New York Times' profit margins are crashing, but the NYT is just a prestige item owned by the Sulzberger family. They don't seem to care if it loses money. If the Sulzbergers sold out, George Soros or someone like him could buy it and run it at a loss, just to jack up his ample ego. The Politically Correct establishment is locked into power just as much as the hereditary aristocracy was during the reign of King George III.

The Left has no interest in transcending race and gender, or solving racism and sexism, as Barack Obama likes to boast when he's not playing the race card. It's just the opposite; Obama and his media suck-ups represent the corruption of racial politics -- or even more broadly, the corrupt rise of the Leftwing elites chosen just for their race, gender, and sexual habits.

That is why Obama was cheered by thousands of indoctrinated Germans, who have been steeped in anti-American hatred during the Bush years. The Euroleft controls the media, the universities, the bureaucracies. They can easily rustle up a big crowd on demand. They don't bother with the appearance of electoral democracy any more, because they don't have to. The elites have lifetime jobs without elections. That's what socialist Europe wants to see in America. Socialism is just modern European imperialism, and Obama is their hero, down to his Leninist iconography.

And yet, the American dream of equality before the law, equality of opportunity -- but not equality by government coercion -- is still alive in our hearts. It is a human fundamental. But we have slipped far, far down the slope toward racial socialism. Perhaps we are beyond recovery.

Let's just keep those facts in mind. Hold on to your sense of outrage. Keep your sense of fairness. Vote for blacks and women when they are qualified, but not when they are not. Don't lose sight of the fact that Barack Obama isn't remotely qualified for the most important and hardest job in the world -- the one that we all depend upon for simple survival in the age of nuclear proliferation to madmen.

Don't lose your bearings. Obama might win, but Leftist corruption must not. Meanwhile, we must keep fighting for what's right. If we give up, the bad guys win. Don't surrender to them.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





30 July, 2008

Obama wants more Haitians in America

Voodoo immigration?

Last year, when Sen. Barack Obama was making the circuit of conventions for journalists of color, the question was whether the prospective candidate was black enough. This year, when he appeared before the UNITY: Journalists of Color convention in Chicago, the presumptive Democratic nominee joked, "I'm too black."

Obama appeared Sunday at the close of the convention in a session aired live on CNN to talk about his observations from his trip to the Middle East and Europe, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. economy and questions from the journalists about faith, affirmative action, immigration and apologies for slavery and to Native Americans.

Asked whether he thought too many immigrants had been allowed into the U.S. and "who should be allowed" into the country, Obama said the issue wasn't whether to let immigrants in but to develop an official policy that makes it easier to become legal and discourages illegal immigration and penalizes employers who use illegal immigrants to avoid paying fair wages. He also said there should be greater equity across the board for immigrants as well, pointing out that "it's much harder for Haitians to immigrate, despite similar circumstances in need" as other groups that have been admitted legally.

Source




Obama’s Trip: No Bounce, Flags, or Wounded Soldiers

Sen. Barack Obama’s international globe-hopping to the Mideast and Europe was meant to burnish his credentials as a foreign policy and potential military leader – the strong suit of his Republican rival Sen. John McCain. Despite the media love fest over the political junket, Obama has yet to pull away from McCain in the polls. His campaign had expected a minimum eight-point lead after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination back in June, with even more momentum moving his way as the campaign progressed.

Both the most recent Real Clear Politics rolling average and the Rasmussen tracking poll that coincided with the end of Obama’s trip this weekend show Obama with just a five-point lead over McCain -- consistent with his numbers for the past two months. [Press reports this weekend have almost completely ignored the Rasmussen poll to only report on a Gallup poll, which showed Obama with a nine-point lead. Not as good as the Newsweek poll from June, which had Obama 15 points ahead of McCain.]

With President Bush suffering low approval ratings, the economy moving into a recession as gas prices surge above $4 a gallon, and growing resentment about the unending war in Iraq, Obama should be pulling away in the polls. But he isn’t. The Obama campaign has been quick to be out front on the bad news, claiming -- at the end of the trip -- it never expected a poll bounce from Obama’s trip anyway. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told Politico’s Mike Allen: “We wouldn’t expect any sort of -- I guess the term people use is ‘bounce.’”

In fact, during Obama’s global meet-and-greet tour, McCain’s poll numbers have risen in key battleground states like Ohio. As crowds cheered Obama globally, Americans here on the homefront were left wondering if the Illinois senator wants to be their president -- or the president of some other country. [And whether the major U.S. media would at least offer the pretense of objectivity. An MSNBC poll from last week found that 47 percent of the public thought the coverage of Obama’s trip was “excessive.”]

After Obama’s speech to an estimated 200,000 Germans in Berlin, a columnist for Britain’s Guardian newspaper began his review this way: “Barack Obama has found his people. But, unfortunately for his election prospects, they're German, not American.”

Obama's speech to the Germans left much to be desired, from an American’s perspective. For starters, the crowd’s size was beefed up by the fact that the event was billed as a free rock concert for German citizens, with popular musical performers helping to draw the big crowd. Scant U.S. media even noted the warm-up rock draws of reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn.

Then there was the simple stage, with the podium surrounded by three potted plants. Missing was the American flag -- nowhere to be seen. Perhaps Obama’s staff might consider the U.S. flag offensive. And then there was his speech, in which he proudly proclaimed he was in Germany as a “a fellow citizen of the world.”

And there was the spectacle of the presidential wannabe going to a foreign land to apologize about the United States. Obama told his German audience he was sorry about his country because “I know my country has not perfected itself.” [This comment was made in the former seat of Nazi power. A letter to editor published in Obama’s hometown Chicago Tribune noted the irony: “While America may not be perfect, there is no reason to apologize to the Germans, architects of the Holocaust.”]

As for America’s role in saving Germany from the onslaught of Stalinist communism and the subsequent Cold War, there was nothing. There was a rhetorical flourish about the Berlin Wall coming down, but nothing about the great American sacrifice, not to mention how our military might made President Reagan’s call -- “Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev” -- a reality.

There was a fleeting mention of the famous Berlin airlift of 1948 that President Truman ordered to thwart the Soviet blockade that sought to starve West Berlin. As Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote, “Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America's military might. “Save for a solitary reference to ‘the first American plane,’ he never described one of the greatest American operations of the postwar period as an American operation at all. He spoke only of ‘the airlift,’ ‘the planes,’ ‘those pilots.’ Perhaps their American identity wasn't something he cared to stress amid all his ‘people of the world’ salutations and talk of ‘global citizenship.’”

The Hollywood-staged Obama event for a man who has yet to ascend to the presidency didn’t sit well with all the Germans. Germany’s Stern magazine carried the headline "Barack Kant Saves the World." One of their columnists, Florian Guessgen, wrote: "The man is perfect, impeccable, slick. Almost too slick … Obama's speech was often vague, sometimes banal and more reminiscent of John Lennon's feel good song 'Imagine' than of a foreign policy agenda."

Slickness without substance seemed to be the enduring theme of his trip. Among the little hiccups covered up by the major media, there were several gaffes on the global coronation trip. Perhaps the most notable -- and reprehensible -- was Obama’s decision to cancel a visit to wounded American soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in southern Germany. Apparently, the Pentagon informed Obama that since his visit was a political one, the hospital visit would be only open to him and his official Senate staff. This excluded the press and campaign officials. The Pentagon did offer to allow Obama’s campaign plane to land at the nearby U.S. air base at Ramstein. The media also was to be accommodated there.

Without the photo opportunity and his press entourage, Obama declined to meet the wounded soldiers. At first, Obama’s campaign claimed to the press he decided to cancel the trip to visit the troops because it was "a trip funded by the campaign," and therefore somehow inappropriate. [What is inappropriate about a presidential candidate visiting wounded troops?] But the Obama story belies the fact it was only after the Pentagon closed the event to his traveling press, that Obama’s campaign nixed the event.

Rightfully, McCain noted that it is never inappropriate for a candidate or official to visit U.S. troops. "If I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event," McCain said. McCain continued the attack on ABC News Sunday show “This Week”: “Those troops would have loved to see him, and I know of no Pentagon regulation that would’ve prevented him from going there” without the news media.

The McCain campaign has been quick to pounce on Obama’s obvious slight to the troops and double-talk, airing a new commercial this weekend. “And now, he made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops,” the ad says. “Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras. John McCain is always there for our troops.” McCain added that Obama “certainly found time to do other things."

One of those other things Obama did was visit Paris and hold a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, typical of an American president visiting the French capital. Interestingly, The New York Times quoted Elysee officials that “Obama aides insisted that an American flag not be displayed alongside the French flag because Mr. Obama is only a visiting senator and not the president.”

There is no protocol preventing an American official from having the flag displayed when abroad. America snubbed once again by a lame excuse.

Source




Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession

What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?

The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.

To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left.

Also, by 1995 the country had a Republican Congress to limit President Clinton's big government agenda, whereas most political pundits predict strengthened Democratic majorities in both Houses in 2009. Because newly elected presidents usually try to implement the policies they campaigned on, Mr. Obama's proposals are worth exploring in some depth. I'll discuss taxes and trade, although the story on his other proposals is similar.

First, taxes. The table nearby demonstrates what could happen to marginal tax rates in an Obama administration. Mr. Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003, and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102,000 of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens.

The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!

Despite the rhetoric, that's not just on "rich" individuals. It's also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle-aged middle-class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas. (His large increase in energy taxes, not documented here, would disproportionately harm low-income Americans. And, while he says he will not raise taxes on the middle class, he'll need many more tax hikes to pay for his big increase in spending.)

On dividends the story is about as bad, with rates rising from 50.4% to 65.6%, and after-tax returns falling over 30%. Even a small response of work and investment to these lower returns means such tax rates, sooner or later, would seriously damage the economy.

On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.

Now trade. In the primaries, Sen. Obama was famously protectionist, claiming he would rip up and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). Since its passage (for which former President Bill Clinton ran a brave anchor leg, given opposition to trade liberalization in his party), Nafta has risen to almost mythological proportions as a metaphor for the alleged harm done by trade, globalization and the pace of technological change.

Yet since Nafta was passed (relative to the comparable period before passage), U.S. manufacturing output grew more rapidly and reached an all-time high last year; the average unemployment rate declined as employment grew 24%; real hourly compensation in the business sector grew twice as fast as before; agricultural exports destined for Canada and Mexico have grown substantially and trade among the three nations has tripled; Mexican wages have risen each year since the peso crisis of 1994; and the two binational Nafta environmental institutions have provided nearly $1 billion for 135 environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In short, it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment. But perhaps I am not objective, since Nafta originated in meetings James Baker and I had early in the Bush 41 administration with Pepe Cordoba, chief of staff to Mexico's President Carlos Salinas.

Mr. Obama has also opposed other important free-trade agreements, including those with Colombia, South Korea and Central America. He has spoken eloquently about America's responsibility to help alleviate global poverty -- even to the point of saying it would help defeat terrorism -- but he has yet to endorse, let alone forcefully advocate, the single most potent policy for doing so: a successful completion of the Doha round of global trade liberalization. Worse yet, he wants to put restrictions into trade treaties that would damage the ability of poor countries to compete. And he seems to see no inconsistency in his desire to improve America's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and turning his back on more than six decades of bipartisan American presidential leadership on global trade expansion. When trade rules are not being improved, nontariff barriers develop to offset the liberalization from the current rules. So no trade liberalization means creeping protectionism.

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

Source




Obama may benefit from the surge

Post below recycled from Taranto. See the original for links

Back in 2005-06, we argued:

With the mainstream media facing a skeptical public and competition from those with other viewpoints, it seems unlikely that Iraq will turn out to be another Vietnam--a war lost in large part because of the media's opposition. Certainly President Bush is determined to stay the course. And it's quite possible that if U.S. troops are still in Iraq in large numbers by 2008, the presidential nominees for both major parties will promise to bring them home--and the winner, once in office, will find he cannot do so.

In the event, John McCain's and Barack Obama's views have been converging, but toward a more moderate position than we anticipated. Even Obama now advocates less-than-total withdrawal. The contrast between the two candidates' past positions, however, is striking. Whereas McCain was ahead even of President Bush in advocating an increase in troop strength, Obama opposed the "surge" and favored a policy that would have led to American defeat. The Times, in its story on the progress against the Madhi Army, credits McCain for his prescience but glosses over Obama's lack of same:

It is part of a general decline in violence that is resonating in American as well as Iraqi politics: Senator John McCain argues that the advances in Iraq would have been impossible without the increase in American troops known as the surge, while Senator Barack Obama, who opposed the increase, says the security improvements should allow a faster withdrawal of combat troops.

In an interview with Katie Couric last week, Obama acknowledged that "U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq," but repeatedly refused to say that this meant the surge had worked. Commentary blogress Jennifer Rubin notes a hilarious Obama comment from the Los Angeles Times:

"Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that he had failed to understand how much violence would decrease this year in Iraq, but he contended that President Bush and Sen. John McCain, the Republicans' presumptive presidential candidate, had made the same mistake." Well, the difference would be that the surge was even more successful than McCain anticipated. Not really the "same mistake" as trying to do everything to prevent implementation and completion of a successful strategy.

Obama seems to lack the humility and wisdom to admit that he has been wrong. Some would argue that this makes him ill-suited for the presidency, but it isn't clear that the voters will agree. They may be persuaded that the surge's success has reduced the risk of an Obama presidency, and they may be right.

There is something to be said for the idea that a presidential campaign should be about the future, not the past. The notion that Obama deserves to be the next president because he was "right" in opposing the war in 2002--a stand that required no political courage whatever in his ultraliberal Chicago state Senate district--always was ludicrous.

On the other hand, it is to McCain's credit that he backed the surge at a time when public opinion across the country had turned against the war effort. "I would rather lose an election than lose a war," McCain has said. He may get his wish.




The Thrill Is Gone

That was a brief fling, even by European romantic standards. One day after his speech before an adulating Berlin crowd last week, Barack Obama said more NATO troops would allow the U.S. to cut its presence in Afghanistan. The "billions of dollars" saved, he told CNN on Friday, could "finance lower taxes for middle-class families."

Ah, not so fast. On Sunday the Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, responded to Mr. Obama by telling the Bild am Sonntag that "Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S."

Erwin Huber, chairman of the center-right Christian Social Union of Bavaria, called Mr. Obama's statement "a disappointment for Europe and Germany." Mr. Huber, who belongs to the sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, also said that "it is the opposite of solidarity and partnership when one side is to make more sacrifices and the other gains an advantage from it."

Welcome to President Bush's world, Senator Obama. The myth is that Mr. Bush's "unilateralism" has so antagonized America's allies that they will rush to share more of the war burden once the Texan is back in Crawford. But Europeans have long enjoyed the free ride of U.S. military protection while enjoying even more their freedom to criticize how that protection is provided. Mr. Obama's attempt to link European security commitments to American tax cuts was the kind of "unilateral" political faux pas that won't make European defense burden-sharing any more likely.

Source



Sins Of Commission And Omission By The Mainstream Media

Post below recycled from Discriminations. See the original for links

I have just reported (see post immediately below) that Barack Obama said over the weekend that he supports quotas - more specifically, that he supports affirmative action "when it is properly structured, so that it is not just a quota...."

He will, of course, deny that he said that, but since there is a CNN video confirming it he will no doubt fall back on clarifications and emendations to the effect that he misspoke, or that somehow the CNN video recorder misrecorded what he actually meant.

In this effort of clarification he will be able to point to, and in all likelihood receive confirmation from, mainstream press reporters who can, in this one clear instance, be shown to have heard what they wanted to hear rather than what their subject actually said.

I documented in my previous post that the New York Times and USA Today quoted Obama's "properly structured" obfuscation but neglected to quote his so long as it's "not just a quota" line. Others, however, actually had him saying the opposite of what he said. A few, but only a few, examples:

Houston Chronicle: "I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when properly structured so there it is not a quota...."

Kansas City Star: "I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when properly structured so there it is not a quota...."

Detroit Free Press: "Obama also reiterated that he is a supporter of affirmative action programs if they are properly executed. He said he does not approve of quotas...."

Interesting that both the Houston Chronicle and the Kansas City Star had the same typo ("... so there it is not a quota"). I'm reminded of the student cheater who got caught when the smart student next to him wrote "I don't know this answer" in response to one question, and the not too bright cheater answered that question by writing "I don't know the answer either."

In my previous post I commended the Associated Press and the Chicago Sun Times for quoting Obama correctly. Further research reveals that the Boston Globe and the National Journal also got the "not just a quota" remark just right.

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





29 July, 2008

Obama's Missing Thesis

Yet more of the documentation of Obama's past is "missing"

The latest report on Obama's missing thesis comes from MSNBC. Written his senior year at Columbia University, Obama's thesis was about Soviet nuclear disarmament. It's only natural to wonder what the budding socialist turned presidential candidate thought of nuclear proliferation in the early 1980s.

The Obama campaign, proving every bit as secretive as the Office of the Vice President, has been less than forthcoming with details. "Spokesman Ben LaBolt wouldn't even say whether Sen. Obama threw out his copy or lost it." At an earlier date, an aide actually told the New Republic the junior senator couldn't recall what he had written about, but as that editor notes, "who doesn't remember their senior thesis?" To get the inside scoop, MSNBC contacted the former professor who taught Obama's senior seminar and who recalls the content of the paper better than Obama himself.

His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. Baron described the paper as a "thesis" or "senior thesis" in several interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it. Baron recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

"My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States," Baron said in an e-mail. "At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other . For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A."

What MSNBC doesn't report is that Baron, or at least a Michael Baron who also happens to run an electronics company in Florida, has given $1,250 to Obama. Maybe if the Obama campaign would release the thesis and Obama's college transcript like a normal presidential campaign, we could all decide for ourselves whether Obama deserves an A.

Source




Obama Promises WHAT?

Barack Obama at Meet the Press, July 27, 2008:

"Our Campaign has been based on the idea we need to fundamentally change the way we do business both domestically and internationally that we should have a different kind of foreign policy where we are deploying all of America's power not just our military but also our diplomatic, economic, cultural and political power. That domestically we've got to promote not just "trickle down" economics but bottom up economic growth and reinvest for example in the clean energy sector. All those things, any time you're bringing about big change, there are some risks involved."

Rhetoric like this indicates the man thinks he can part the waters while gingerly walking on them. However, he has hidden in this pronouncement "from on high" the phrase "promote not only trickle down economics". By implication Obama is saying that trickle down economics has not only worked but that he plans to promote it. This is not only an acknowledgment of the success of capitalism but his endorsement of it. Needless to say this is a departure from the beliefs of his socialist friends and mentors and those of the folks at MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos.

Obama, of course, follows up that phrase with the caveat that we "need to promote.. bottom up economic growth". Here Obama runs into one of the massive contradictions in his political philosophy. His website's only solution to generate "bottom up growth" is to tax the rich and redistribute those monies to the middle-class (the poor have been left behind in his campaign). Well when you tax the rich you take money out of the capital pool that keeps America creating businesses and jobs thus diverting it from investment to consumption. Taxes are the socialist's punishments for the capitalist's success. You can't have it both ways. The way to growth is not taxation but investment by individuals.

Everyone knows that the Democrats and their entitlement industry will be thrilled with Obama. He is going to tax the rich unmercifully and add more programs to that burgeoning industry. However, hidden from sight is the fact that entitlements have never delivered "bottom up growth" - they have never made the poor richer just more dependent on their socialist handlers in Washington that keep the bandages of poverty clean while lying about their promises of a cure.

Right now Obama is hitting all the right notes to get elected in what is a "Democrat election year". The question is whether or not he can go from the soft education of socialism to the hard education of capitalism. Will he remain an undergrad or use the hard education of capitalism to get his masters. He recently became a multi-millionaire selling his books - hopefully that will mute this street organizer's fellow travelers and bring him into the sunlight. On Meet the Press he didn't have teleprompters to read and did a creditable job of handling some very tough questions.

His leftisy street creds took a beating by saying that trickle down worked and he will promote it - now let's see if that was just another Marxian trick.

Source




Obama's Social Security Fine Print

Last week, Barack Obama revealed his plan to shore up Social Security's shaky finances by raising the income level on which the payroll tax is applied. Currently, incomes above $102,000 are exempt, with that threshold rising every year indexed to wage inflation. Mr. Obama would keep that limit in place, but then assess payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000, which his campaign claims would apply to only the richest 3% of Americans.

Mr. Obama angered liberals last year when he admitted that there was a "Social Security crisis." But at least Mr. Obama's base should be appeased now that his solution to the "crisis" is to soak the rich. One liberal columnist actually noted with glee the fact that this would take us back to top tax rates not seen since the 1970s.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama's new tax would siphon off 0.4% of gross domestic product annually. Combined with Mr. Obama's other tax-hike initiatives, "the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent. In high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher."

Would it help Social Security's financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn't there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?

But the most alarming thing about Mr. Obama's proposal is that the $250,000 threshold, above which the payroll tax would be applied, refers to household income, not individual income. So it's quite deceptive when he claims that the $250,000 threshold will "ensure that lifting the payroll tax cap does not ensnare any middle class Americans."

Suppose your household consists of you and your spouse, each earning wages of $150,000 per year. Currently, you are each subject to the payroll tax up to $102,000 of wages, so together you are taxed on $204,000. Under the Obama plan, you'd be taxed again on another $50,000 of wages. At the current payroll tax rate of 12.4% - 6.2% from wage-earners and 6.2% from their employers - your household would be looking at a tax hike of $6,200 per year. You probably didn't consider yourself rich before, and you certainly won't after paying that tax bill.

But that tax bill could be higher still. While the payroll tax has always been calculated just on wages from labor, Mr. Obama hasn't decided yet what forms of income will be included in the $250,000 threshold. It's an open question whether it might include interest on savings and capital gains income.

And neither has Mr. Obama said whether the rich - and, truth be told, the middle class - paying his new higher taxes will get correspondingly higher Social Security benefits when they retire. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn't uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.

And for all that, Mr. Obama's proposal won't help Social Security's long-run solvency problems. According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn't make much difference to the system's long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system's 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.

Remember, that inadequate result is what you get when all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Mr. Obama's plan - even with his household definition of $250,000 income - would collect far less than that. No wonder Mr. Obama's economic advisers aren't interested in doing any detailed analysis.

Worst of all, even the small contribution to Social Security solvency that Mr. Obama's plan might make is entirely illusory. In fact, the more taxes his plan collects, the worse Social Security's long-term situation gets. That's because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds.

There's only one place that the money to redeem those bonds can come from: taxes. So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again - plus interest. You like the idea of paying more taxes today for Mr. Obama's Social Security plan? Then just wait 20 years or so, because you'll get to pay more taxes all over again.

Source




Monsieur Obama's Tax Rates

Celebrity chef Alain Ducasse insists that his change of citizenship this week from high-tax France to no-income-tax Monaco wasn't a financial decision but an "affair of the heart." Right. But even if he's being sincere, plenty of other Frenchmen have moved abroad to escape their country's confiscatory taxes.

Americans should be so lucky: Theirs is the only industrialized country that taxes its people even if they live overseas. That hasn't been a big problem as long as U.S. tax rates have been relatively low. But with Barack Obama promising to lift rates to French-like levels, this taxman-cometh policy could turn Americans into the world's foremost fiscal prisoners.

And make no mistake, taxes under a President Obama could be truly a la francaise. The top marginal tax rate, including federal, state and local levies, could approach 60% for self-employed New Yorkers and Californians. Not even France's taxes are that high now that President Nicolas Sarkozy has capped the total that high-earning Frenchmen like Mr. Ducasse can pay in income, social and wealth taxes at 50% of earnings.

Mr. Sarkozy set this "fiscal shield" because he knows that tax rates affect behavior. When he visited London this year, he observed that the British capital is now home to so many French bankers and other professionals seeking tax relief that it's the seventh-largest French city. Those expatriates choose not to use their creativity and investment capital to benefit France and its economy.

Senator Obama's plans to raise income, Social Security and capital-gains taxes amount to a belief that people don't react to punitive tax rates. If so, he needn't worry about people leaving the country and could let them pay taxes in whichever part of the globe they choose to live in. Once Americans are paying French-style tax rates, they ought to have the same freedom to move as Alain Ducasse.

Source




Obama's old and discredited economics

In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual. As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s. The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country's problems, just because they say so-- or say so loudly or inspiringly. Politicians' top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he "refines" his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.

Perhaps a defining moment in showing Senator Obama's priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes.

Since about half the people in the United States own stocks-- either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks-- socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to "the rich." But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically.

What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of "the people" against "the privileged."

If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire-- as Social Security is unlikely to do-- you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric.

Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not. Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers. That's their problem. A politician's problem is how to look like he is for "the poor" and against those who are "exploiting" them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.

Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced "peace in our time"-- just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.

Senator Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today-- and his political popularity is what it's all about. The consequences for the country come later

Source




McCain and Obama differ on colorblind equality!

In an interview with George Stephanopoulus finally stepped away from ("abandoned" might be too strong) his ridiculous refusal to endorse colorblind equality and announced that, after all, and his previous reluctance to the contrary, he really does believe the state should treat its citizens without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex.

STEPHANOPOULOS: "Opponents of affirmative action are trying to get a referendum on the ballot here that would do away with affirmative action. Do you support that?"

MCCAIN: "Yes, I do. I do not believe in quotas. But I have not seen the details of some of the proposals. But I've always opposed quotas."

STEPHANOPOULOS: "But the one here in Arizona you support?"

McCAIN: "I support it, yes."

Obama, predictably, continues to attack the requirement that everyone be treated without regard to race as "divisive." Speaking to "journalists of color" in Chicago, Obama said:

"I think in the past he [McCain] had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people" Obama said to a question asked from an audience of journalists.

So, treating everyone without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex is to "drive a wedge between people." Welcome to Obamaland.

Source

Another comment on the above matter:

Senator John McCain said today that he supports the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, which would ban preferences based on race, ethnicity, and sex in the state's public contracting, education (including university admissions), and employment programs. Essentially identical initiatives will be before voters this fall in Colorado and Nebraska, and have been enacted in California, Washington, and most recently Michigan.

Disappointingly, Senator Barack Obama immediately criticized McCain: "I think in the past he'd been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people."

Obama's criticism is wrongheaded for at least three reasons: (1) it is obviously preferential policies that are divisive, not their abolition; (2) the "big problem" of helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds can be addressed by helping people of all colors who are disadvantaged, rather than crudely and unfairly using race as a proxy for disadvantage; and (3) Obama himself has recognized as much, albeit fitfully and inconsistently, in his own statements-for instance, acknowledging the divisiveness of preferential treatment (in his Philadelphia speech), and the fact that his own daughters, for starters, come from privileged backgrounds and thus are "probably" not deserving of preferential treatment.

Kudos to John McCain! This is a solid, important commitment by him to the principle of E pluribus unum, and Americans across the political spectrum, but especially conservatives, should applaud him. As for Barack Obama: This is a critical moment in his campaign. Is he a candidate of change who will transcend race and bring us all together, rejecting divisive policies he knows in his heart are outdated and irrelevant-or just another Democratic pol who lacks the courage to stand up to powerful but aging interests in his own party, which remain hopelessly infatuated with identity politics and insist on perpetuating a set of policies that have always been unfair and divisive and are now outmoded to boot?

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





28 July, 2008

You must be kidding: Obama says residual troop levels in Iraq are "entirely conditions-based"

I wrote about this a few days ago when he ducked Katie Couric's question by torturing the distinction between tactics and strategy. According to The One, the president sets the strategy: Most troops out in 16 months but some left behind for various missions. The generals supply the tactics: To carry out those missions responsibly, we need X number of troops. What does X equal? Why, it's . "entirely conditions-based":

In Iraq, it's not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country. But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between them?

Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.

You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?

I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.

Team McCain points to Bob Novak's column this week citing unnamed Obama advisors as saying this could mean leaving as many as 50,000 troops in place. According to a recent essay by Colin Kahl, who runs Obama's working group on Iraq, in the "near term" they might keep as many as 12 brigades there for "overwatch," i.e. support, duties.

If Obama's top priority really is withdrawal, his Iraq policy should begin by setting the number of troops he's comfortable leaving in the field and then asking for recommendations on which missions are feasible given that number. The fact that he's going about it the other way, starting with the missions and then building any drawdown around them, is a decidedly McCain-esque (i.e. conditions-based, i.e. responsible) approach. He tweaked McCain this morning for having lately come around to so many of his own positions, but in light of this, he and Maverick are almost mirror images on Iraq now: McCain thinks troop levels should depend on conditions but concedes that 16 months is a "pretty good timetable" whereas Obama thinks 16 months is a pretty good timetable but concedes that, er, troop levels should depend on conditions. Nuance. Predictably, the McCain camp is crowing about it. Here's their statement, hot off the presses:

"Today Barack Obama finally abandoned his dangerous insistence on an unconditional withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by making clear that for the foreseeable future, troop levels in Iraq will be `entirely conditions based.' We welcome this latest shift in Senator Obama's position, but it is obvious that it was only a lack of experience and judgment that kept him from arriving at this position sooner.

"John McCain has always held the position that any withdrawal from Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground. With the incredible success of the surge, which John McCain advocated, it is increasingly likely that U.S. troops will be able to withdraw with victory in hand. John McCain had long urged Barack Obama, who opposed the surge, to return to Iraq in order to see the immense changes in the security situation there since his last visit. Now that Obama has finally met with General Petraeus, it appears that he has also come to the conclusion that troop levels in Iraq must be based on the conditions on the ground."

The key remaining conceptual difference between them is, of course, the type of missions they have in mind for residual troops. McCain surely imagines something more ambitious, Obama something more limited and support-oriented. Watch for the debate to shift to that subject next, especially in light of the big AP story this afternoon talking about troops in the field already shifting to peacekeeper roles (which they've had for awhile in some parts of Iraq) and reconstruction support. Are U.S. peacekeepers out of the question for President Obama? We'll see.

Update: Per the last paragraph and the evolving scope of the mission, a reader notes that Obama's residual force would theoretically contain no combat troops. Big difference with McCain, to be sure, but again - read the AP story. There's not much combat going on in Iraq anymore that would require combat troops anyway. The issue now is peacekeepers, troops who are going to walk the beat, see sporadic action, and reassure Iraqis that there's a strong security presence available to deal with contingencies while the IA gets up to speed. How about it, BO?

Source




Obama overseas: The people were less impressed than the media

While Barack Obama was wowing the crowds in Berlin, his Republican opponent was at Schmidt's Restaurant and Sausage Haus in Columbus, Ohio, trying to live up to its slogan about making "the best of the Wurst". Trying to get a little love and attention seemed a stubbornly hopeless task for John McCain, the Vietnam war hero who, only a few months ago, had been politely welcomed in the same capitals as Obama, but without the mania. Most media commentators regarded his tour of the diners and supermarkets of Middle America as pitiful. "I'm not making that up. Senator `National Security' went from the cheese aisle to the fudge house and ordered a box of cream puffs," television presenter Keith Olbermann scoffed.

The voters did not seem to mind in the least, however. "We love him," said Diane Woods, from Columbus. "I don't know why Obama is getting all this attention. McCain is right where he should be - in America."

Some aspects of McCain's tour did appear comical at the time. The 71-year-old husband of a multi-millionaire heiress was in a grocery store in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, bemoaning the high price of milk while Obama was discussing the future of the Middle East with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Or he was running radio ads in tiny hamlets called Berlin blasting Obama's foreign policy, while the Democrat was smiling and patting Chancellor Angela Merkel on the shoulder in the genuine German capital.

It was cornball politics but, it transpired, none the worse for that. McCain's picture made the front pages of newspapers in the heartlands of America while Obama's aides wondered nervously whether it was really desirable to attract a 200,000 crowd in Berlin when his biggest rally in America had drawn only 70,000 - and that was in Oregon, the home of hippies and latte drinkers.

Initially, the polls showed McCain gaining on Obama. By the end of the week there was a "baby bounce" for the Democrat. On Friday Gallup and Rasmussen's tracking polls showed that he had opened up a 5-6 point national lead over the Arizona senator.

Will that last? Neil Kinnock, the former Labour leader, still rues the moment when, high in the polls, he punched the air triumphantly at the party's 1992 Sheffield rally and shouted: "We're all right." To this day he believes that his premature victory lap cost him the election. Could Obama look back on his heady overseas tour with similar regret?

Lanny Davis, a former White House official under Bill Clinton, believes Obama must make the economy his priority from now on. "`The economy, stupid' is more relevant than ever. When he returns, he should not utter one more word on foreign policy and confront John McCain on what he intends to do about the semi-depression we are in."

The gulf between fashionable East and West Coast opinion and the views of residents of the "flyover states" of Middle America rarely seemed more pronounced than last week. Obama's tour seemed to be going so well, as far as the liberal commentariat was concerned.

Eugene Robinson, a columnist in The Washington Post, gushed about the "extraordinary luck that has followed Obama's new Boeing 757 around the globe like an escort plane". Others looked at the Obama '08/President stitched on to the back of the pilot's chair on his O-Force One campaign jet and shuddered at his presumption.

When Obama cancelled a proposed visit to injured US servicemen at Landstuhl, in Germany, after the Pentagon reminded him that he could come as a senator but not as a political campaigner, yet found time to go to the gym in the Berlin Ritz-Carlton, the Republicans' picture of him as a phoney-baloney speechifier was complete "If you want to remember one thing about this trip it is that Barack Obama chose to work out rather than see the wounded troops because he couldn't bring [television anchors] Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams with him," said Sean Hannity, a conservative talk show host.

Source




MISSING FROM THAT BERLIN SPEECH

Barack Obama had ample reason to recall the Berlin Airlift of 1948 during his dramatic speech in the German capital last week. The airlift was an early and critical success for the West in the Cold War, with clear relevance to our own time, the war in Iraq, and the free world's conflict with radical Islam. But having reached back 60 years to that pivotal hour of American leadership, Obama proceeded to draw from it exactly the wrong lessons.

The Soviet Union had blockaded western Berlin on June 24, 1948, choking off access to the city by land and water and threatening 2.5 million people with starvation. Moscow was determined to force the United States and its allies out of Berlin. To capitulate to Soviet pressure, as Obama rightly noted, "would have allowed Communism to march across Europe." Yet many in the West advocated retreat, fearing that the only way to keep the city open was to use the atomic bomb -- and launch World War III.

But for President Truman, retreat was unthinkable. "We stay in Berlin, period," he decreed. Overriding the doubts of senior advisers, including Secretary of State George C. Marshall and General Omar Bradley, the Army Chief of Staff, Truman ordered the Armed Forces to begin supplying Berlin by air.

Military planners initially thought that with a "very big operation," they might be able to get 700 tons of food to Berlin. Within weeks, the Air Force was flying in twice that amount every day, as well as supplies of coal.

"Pilots and crew were making heroic efforts," David McCullough recorded in his sweeping biography of Truman. "At times planes were landing as often as every four minutes -- British Yorks and Dakotas, America C-47s and the newer, much larger, four-engine C-54s . . . Ground crews worked round the clock. `We were proud of our Air Force during the war. We're prouder of it today,' said The New York Times."

Yet the pressure to abandon Berlin persisted. The CIA argued that the airlift had worsened matters by "making Berlin a major test of US-Soviet strength" and affirming "direct US responsibility" for West Berlin. The airlift was bound to fail, the intelligence analysts warned. Truman didn't waver. "We'll stay in Berlin -- come what may," he wrote in his diary on July 19. "I don't pass the buck, nor do I alibi out of any decision I make."

It would take nearly a year and more than 277,000 flights, but in the end it was the Soviets who backed down. On May 12, 1949, the blockade ended -- a triumph of American prowess and perseverance, and a momentous vindication for Truman.

But not once in his Berlin speech did Obama acknowledge Truman's fortitude, or even mention his name. Nor did he mention the US Air Force, or the 31 American pilots who died during the airlift. Indeed, Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America's military might. Save for a solitary reference to "the first American plane," he never described one of the greatest American operations of the postwar period as an American operation at all. He spoke only of "the airlift," "the planes," "those pilots." Perhaps their American identity wasn't something he cared to stress amid all his "people of the world" salutations and talk of "global citizenship."

"People of the world," Obama declaimed, "look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." But the world *didn't* stand as one during the Cold War; it was riven by an Iron Curtain. For more than four decades, America and the West confronted an implacable enemy on the other side of that divide. What finally defeated that enemy and ended the Cold War was not harmony and goodwill, but American strength and resolve.

Obama's speech was a paean to international cooperation and unity. "Now is the time to join together," he said. "It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads." No -- it was a Democratic president named Truman, who had the audacity to order an airlift when others counseled retreat, and the grit to see it through when others were ready to withdraw.

Sixty years later, it is a very different kind of Democrat who is running for president. Obama may have wowed 'em in Berlin, but he's no Harry Truman.

Source




What Did Obama Learn in Iraq? The senator hasn't shown us much yet

Barack Obama's trip to Iraq was so presidential that at moments, he sounded like our current White House resident. When Karen Tumulty of Time asked Obama what he'd learned on his trip, he said, "It confirmed a lot of my beliefs." Lara Logan of CBS asked him if he was ever in doubt that he could lead the country in war as commander in chief, and he answered, "Never."

After seven and a half years of George Bush, we should pause when a man auditioning for president says that the facts confirmed his beliefs and that he's never in doubt. As Obama himself has warned us at other moments, these are signs that a fearless leader may be letting ideology or rigidity steer him in the wrong direction. We know, of course, that Barack Obama, in fact, goes through life thinking in subtle, nuanced, and interesting ways. He's probably got lots of complex input from his visit to Iraq that he's dissecting and analyzing. But he's not sharing much. And what he has shared on the occasion of his big trip hasn't been very nourishing.

Before Obama flew to Baghdad, I asked his top foreign-policy adviser, Susan Rice, what kinds of questions he'd asked of his advisers over the months to test whether his Iraq withdrawal plan still matched the realities on the ground in Iraq. Rice gave me no examples. And now that the trip is over, we have no better sense of how Sen. Obama thinks about Iraq. It's not that I expect grand revelations. But Obama still holds the same policy views he did more than a year and a half ago, even though a lot has changed since then in Iraq, and a lot of those events appear to contradict his earlier views. We know that Obama hasn't moved, but we don't know, really, why that's so.

The main complexity Obama has to confront in Iraq is the apparent success of the most recent phase of U.S. military strategy, of which the troop surge was a key part. Violence has come down from stratospheric heights. The success is relative (violence is still at 2005 levels), but the situation is far better than Obama predicted. When he voted against the surge in January 2007, he claimed on more than one occasion that it would lead to increased casualties and sectarian violence. It didn't. How'd he get that one wrong? In January 2007, Obama claimed that the Iraqi government would make no hard choices if the United States stayed. But they have made hard choices. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched incursions into Basra and confronted cleric Muqtada Sadr, both of which helped pave the way for the Sunni faction's return to the government. This is not enough progress to suggest Iraq is anywhere near stable, but like the drop in violence, it's more than Obama predicted.

These are not academic questions. Some people would say the vote on the surge was one of Obama's most important as a senator. As Obama pointed out regularly during the Democratic primaries with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom voted to authorize the Iraq war, a person's past vote tells you something about his or her judgment. Obama has talked a lot about the clarity of his judgment in opposing the Iraq war. He also once suggested that if he'd been forced to cast an actual vote for or against the Iraq war as a senator, his view might have been complicated. On the surge, we get a chance to watch Obama grapple with similar complexities in real time. Or, at least, we should.

Obama's take on the surge also tells us how he processes information about Iraq. This has direct bearing on how he shapes his policy for the country today. The same choices are in play-will military tactics or withdrawal get the Iraqis to make political progress? If Obama was wrong about the tactical gains that would be made by the new strategy and wrong about how the Iraqi political leaders would react, can his larger theory about how Iraqis will respond to a troop pullout remain intact? Perhaps, but he has the burden of explanation. Does he elide contradictions, claim they're irrelevant, and generally spin? In his interview with NBC's Brian Williams, he suggested that he'd always said the surge would decrease violence in Iraq. That's not just spin. It's not true. At the time Bush announced the surge, Obama said: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

The surge that Obama opposed had two parts to it: an increase in troops and a bet on a new military strategy. Obama opposed the additional troops; he also opposed a host of other new tactics Gen. Petraeus tried, arguing they would not lead to political improvement. Even if you agree with the argument that the additional brigades didn't change much in Iraq on their own, you still have to account for whether the overall Petraeus strategy shift worked to assist the positive developments among Sunnis and Sadr's Shiite militia. Obama suggests the military had almost no role in the Anbar Awakening and the decision by Sadr's militia to stand down-that the two sets of events merely happened "at the same time." Military leaders think they had a role in bringing about these improvements. (This might be a bigger dis of the brass than his conflict with them over a timeline for withdrawal.) What did he learn on his trip that suggests he's right and the generals are wrong? Did nothing on the trip shade his view?

These questions are linked to the big looming problem in Iraq-the slow pace of political reform-and how U.S. policy fixes that problem. Obama maintains that whatever gains the new strategy has produced on the political front, they haven't been enough. Only by setting his timetable for withdrawal will Iraqis shape up and make hard choices. This has always been at the heart of his policy, and when asked about the success of the surge, Obama doubled down on the idea that only withdrawal could get the Iraqis moving. Terry Moran of ABC asked if he would vote for the surge knowing what he knows now. He said he would not. He suggested withdrawal might have yielded the same or better results as the Petraeus strategy. Did he get any new evidence on his trip to support this theory?

Obama once argued that the Anbar Awakening of September 20006, in which Sunni tribesmen turned against al-Qaida, started because Democrats took control of Congress. (The awakening started months before the 2006 election, but never mind, McCain also mangled the timeline this week.) Obama's theory was that since Democrats had promised to withdraw troops, Sunnis started taking their affairs into their own hands. But given that Congress never made good on its promise to reduce funding or troop levels, and in fact troop levels increased, why didn't Sunni violence go up? What did Obama learn on his trip that's relevant here?

Will Obama expand on his thinking about these Iraq specifics in the coming days? Politically, it would probably be a bad idea for him to do so. Obama looks like he's on the right side of the moment. The Iraqi prime minister has validated his plan for a 16-month withdrawal timeline, and the Bush administration is talking in a similar way. For months, Obama has called for engagement with Iran and now that's what the administration is doing. So, too, on Afghanistan, which he's been focusing on for months. Though he deftly used his Democratic opponents' past votes during the primaries to argue he had better judgment, he'll now seek to take advantage of voters' preference for thinking about the future. "Let's not re-fight the past," said former Sen. Bob Kerrey in an Obama campaign statement criticizing McCain for his obsession over Obama's position on the surge.

Perhaps Obama doesn't want to share his views because his inquisitive mind sometimes takes him to contradictory places. In his book The Audacity of Hope, he writes about pulling aside reporters who were living in Iraq to get their views about the war. He expected them to agree with his call for a troop reduction. They didn't. They said a troop reduction would start a civil war. Obama called for a troop reduction anyway, but we know his mind is alive enough to capture and remember a piece of data that didn't fit with his pre-existing views. Are contradictory observations fine for a book but off-limits when you're a political candidate? Admitting you're wrong, or even that your thinking has evolved, is risky for a politician. Maybe too risky. That's certainly what George Bush believes.

Source




Obamessiah who makes Paris Hilton look reclusive

And verily he came among us. The Obamessiah was too modest to perform any actual miracles on the steps of No10 Downing Street, but yesterday he did speak to a man who thinks he's God (Tony Blair), a man in need of resurrection (Gordon Brown) and a man leading an exiled people out of the wilderness (David Cameron).

What an almighty fuss, if you'll forgive the pun, about a junior Senator who's still only a contender for the White House. You'd think he had already got his bottom on the President's seat in the Oval Office.

After the Obamania that has spread with the speed of a biblical plague across America and much of mainland Europe, it was finally Britain's turn. But following eight countries in seven days and a carbon footprint of 10,000 air miles, Barack Obama had to persuade us he was here to do more than just change planes on the way home.

And that was always going to be tricky, because this visit was conducted mainly behind closed doors. There was no address to the masses as there had been in Berlin (but then, the Germans do like a mass rally...) and no double-handed Press conference with the Premier, as there was with President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris. As one of his accompanying Press corps was overheard saying to colleagues: `Hey, guys, another three handshakes and we're home.'

So what did we get? Um, not much. The first glimpse came outside his London hotel, where he had breakfast with Middle East envoy Tony Blair. As Mr Blair's car fell into an unstatesmanlike convoy with a laundry truck, Obama emerged before the media scrum with almost presidential composure. He wore a smile as white as his box-fresh shirt, a dark suit and a deep-red tie, all accessorised with a kind of bullet-proof confidence.

Half an hour later, when he appeared in the Downing Street garden alongside Gordon Brown, it was obvious they were wearing matching outfits, but they could not have looked more different - the energy and freshness of Obama contrasting painfully against the exhausted perma-crumple of our own Premier.

Then there was a Press conference on the steps of No10. But where was Obama's soaring rhetoric, the compelling, charismatic oratory that has come to define his Presidential campaign? Perhaps it was still going around a luggage carousel at Heathrow, because he'd certainly left it somewhere.

His preamble was a bit moth-eaten, although that is unsurprising since it had been well used at other points on the world stage in previous days. He'd had a wonderful visit and had talked to Gordon Brown about the transatlantic alliance, climate change, international terrorism and the world's wobbly finances. Well, whoopdy-doo. That's what most of us are discussing, too, but we're not running for President.

His Q&A with the assembled 150-strong Press pack was a little better. He was measured and thoughtful, and even managed a couple of jokes, especially about his own success, pointing out: `You are always more popular before you're in charge.'

Afterwards it was off to see David Cameron at the House of Commons, enabling commentators to speculate on his meeting with past, current and future Prime Ministers. And then he was gone. It was a pretty low-key visit for a man who admitted, `I'm so overexposed I make Paris Hilton look like a recluse.' He's exposed, yes, but he leaves this shore without us really knowing any more about him.

In Berlin, Obama couldn't wait to tell the 200,000 crowd that his father had been a goatherd in Kenya and his grandfather a cook for the British during colonial rule. A cook? I wonder if he passed on his recipe for souffl‚s, those tricky dishes that look fantastic in the rarefied atmosphere of the oven but collapse with a phhht of hot air when they come into contact with the real world. I suppose we'll find out after America's elections in November.

Source




Obama is all talk

It is an extraordinary sight to walk into a basic two-room house under a mango tree in rural east Africa and discover what is essentially a shrine to Barack Obama.

The small brick house with no running water, a tin roof and roving chickens, goats and cows is owned by Sarah Obama, Barack's 86-year-old step-grandmother. Inside, the walls are decorated with a 2008 Obama election sticker, an old "Barack Obama for Senate" poster on which he has written "Mama Sarah Habai [how are you?]", a 2005 calendar that says "The Kenyan Wonder Boy in the US", and more than a dozen family photos.

But this bucolic scene in his father's village of Kogelo near the Equator in western Kenya conceals a troubling reality that, until now, has never been spoken about. Barack Obama, the Evening Standard can reveal, after we went to the village earlier this month, has failed to honour the pledges of assistance that he made to a school named in his honour when he visited here amid great fanfare two years ago.

At that historic homecoming in August 2006 Obama was greeted as a hero with thousands lining the dirt streets of Kogelo. He visited the Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School built on land donated by his paternal grandfather. After addressing the pupils, a third of whom are orphans, and dancing with them as they sang songs in his honour, he was shown a school with four dilapidated classrooms that lacked even basic resources such as water, sanitation and electricity.

He told the assembled press, local politicians (who included current Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga), and students: "Hopefully I can provide some assistance in the future to this school and all that it can be." He then turned to the school's principal, Yuanita Obiero, and assured her and her teachers: "I know you are working very hard and struggling to bring up this school, but I have said I will assist the school and I will do so."

Obiero says that although Obama did not explicitly use the word "financial" to qualify the nature of the assistance he was offering, "there was no doubt among us [teachers] that is what he meant. We interpreted his words as meaning he would help fund the school, either personally or by raising sponsors or both, in order to give our school desperately-needed modern facilities and a facelift". She added that 10 of the school's 144 pupils are Obama's relatives.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





27 July, 2008

Barack Obama's foreign tour loses him ground back home

Barack Obama denied yesterday that he was ignoring the concerns of ordinary Americans while he tours the world, amid signs that the adulation he is receiving abroad has alienated some US voters. After the Democratic presidential candidate holds meetings with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron in London today, the last leg of his nine-day international tour, he returns home to a general election campaign with new polls showing him in a tightening race against John McCain, the Republican candidate.

Mr McCain and his surrogates have spent the week seeking to build the impression that Mr Obama’s trip – and particularly his speech to 200,000 in Berlin on Thursday – shows an arrogance and presumptuousness that is disconnected from voters back home, who are most concerned with the faltering US economy. “I’d love to give a speech in Germany. But I’d much prefer to do it as president of the United States, rather than as a candidate for the office of presidency,” Mr McCain said in the battleground state of Ohio. An aide to the Arizona senator called Mr Obama’s speech “a premature victory lap in the heart of Berlin”.

Mr McCain’s campaign has been beset by missteps and bad luck in the past month, and has been dwarfed in terms of media coverage by Mr Obama’s almost flawless audition on the world stage. Yet new surveys show Mr McCain pulling almost even with Mr Obama – a Gallup poll yesterday had Mr Obama leading 45 to 43 per cent – and the Democrat losing ground in several key battleground states. He has lost a small lead in Colorado, and his ten-point advantage over Mr McCain has dropped to just two in Minnesota.

Although Mr Obama is still favoured to win, other surveys show that many more voters identify with Mr McCain’s “values and background”, and feel they still don’t know Mr Obama. While Mr Obama met Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Wednesday, Mr McCain was holding a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. “For the past two days on talk radio here, pretty much every caller wanted to know why Barack Obama was in Europe and the Middle East rather than talking to people back home about the issues here,” said Andrew Seder, a reporter for the Times Leader in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, who covered the McCain event. Mr Obama defended the trip, saying that persuading foreign leaders to send more troops to Afghanistan could save the US billions of dollars.

At a Paris press conference with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, Mr Obama said: “Let me remind everyone. I’m not the president. I’m a US senator.” Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, said that he believed the trip had been a success, because voters “saw someone acting presidential, and that is one of the biggest thresholds he has to cross.”

Source




End of the Affair?

Barack Obama and the press break up?

Around midnight on July 16, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney received a terse e-mail from Barack Obama's press office. The campaign was irked by the Times' latest poll and Nagourney and Megan Thee's accompanying front-page piece titled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race," which was running in the morning's paper. Nagourney answered the query, the substance of which he says was minor, and went to bed, thinking the matter resolved.

But, the next morning, Nagourney awoke to an e-mail from Talking Points Memo writer Greg Sargent asking him to comment on an eight-point rebuttal trashing his piece that the Obama campaign had released to reporters and bloggers like The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith. Nagourney had not heard the complaints from the Obama camp and had no idea they were so steamed. "I'm looking at this thing, and I'm like, 'What the hell is this?' " Nagourney recently recalled. "I really flipped out."

Later that afternoon, Nagourney got permission from Times editors to e-mail Sargent a response to the Obama memo. But the episode still grates. "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others," Nagourney tells me. "I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent."

So much for "Obama Love." That's the title of John McCain's new web ad, which strings together clips of cable news pundits gushing over Obama like besotted teens. This romance has been a prominent story line of Obama's entire campaign, and clearly elements of it are true: "I felt this thrill going up my leg," Chris Matthews crows in one clip flagged in the ad. But scratch the surface, and you'll find a lot of mixed feelings behind the Obama "love." Reporters are grumbling more and more that the campaign is acting like the Prom Queen. They gripe that it is "arrogant" and "control[ling]," and the campaign's own belief that Obama is poised to make history isn't endearing, either. The press certainly helped Obama get so far so fast; the question is, how far can he get if his campaign alienates them?

Last year, when Hillary Clinton campaigned as a front-runner, Obama provided access to the press corps and won over the media. One night, during a campaign stop in Iowa, he met reporters for off-the-record drinks. He cooperated for magazine profiles and appeared on the cover of GQ. And Clinton's relationship with the press wasn't half as easy. "The difference is the Clinton people were hostile for no reason," a reporter who has covered both Democrats tells me.

But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."

In June, there was something of a revolt after Obama ditched the press corps on his campaign plane for a secret meeting with Clinton at Senator Dianne Feinstein's house in Washington, leaving the reporters trapped on the flight to Chicago. The D.C. bureau chiefs of half a dozen news organizations, including the late Tim Russert, sent an angry letter to Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Plouffe and threatened not to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the flight. "The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one," they wrote. "We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth." After the incident, the press corps decided that one pool reporter would keep Obama in sight at all times. "It's a body watch," one reporter jokes.

Meanwhile, there have been widespread complaints over the shortage of spots to accompany Obama on his tour of the Middle East and Europe. A few days before the tour departed, Time magazine was told it couldn't send a photographer along, and, on July 22, NBC foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell complained on-air that the only images the press had received of Obama meeting with the troops was released by the U.S. military. (To be fair, congressional delegations to Iraq are kept secret for security purposes). And there's been widespread grumbling that the campaign revoked New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza's spot on the trip as retribution for the magazine's recent satirical cover. These may or may not be legitimate complaints--the evidence is mixed--but the press is hardly inclined to give the campaign the benefit of the doubt.

Obama's press liaison, Robert Gibbs, has built a particularly large reservoir of ill will. David Mendell, who covered Obama's Senate campaign for the Chicago Tribune and authored the 2007 Obama book From Promise to Power, wrote about Gibbs as "the anti-Obama" and described him as "Obama's hired gun, skillfully trained to shoot at reporters whose coverage was deemed unfair. Mendell tells me, "if [Gibbs] feels you're necessary to achieve a campaign goal, he will give you access and allow you in. But, if he feels you're not going to be of help, he can just ignore you." Mendell has his own specific gripe: Apparently, the Obama team was less than pleased with his biography, on which they cooperated, and Gibbs has since refused to help with the second edition.

One reporter sniffs that Gibbs, a native Alabaman and veteran of John Kerry's 2004 campaign, is the "communications director who doesn't communicate." "If you're getting an interview, and they say ten minutes, it's ten minutes," adds Time's Karen Tumulty, who scored an interview with Obama in June. "Robert Gibbs will cut it off."

More here




Change Germans Can't Believe In

WITH gestures that ranged from a wink to a sneer, most anyone you met here this week volunteered the view that Barack Obama's visit to Europe caused unprecedented frenzy. But it's been hard for me to find a European, aside from two Harvard-educated friends in Paris, who confessed to excitement - not just about the visit, but the prospect of an Obama presidency.

It is true that Der Spiegel, the German newsweekly, featured Mr. Obama on its cover, topped by the words "Germany Meets the Superstar" - but the cover was satire, and nasty satire at that. The editors managed to find the ugliest photograph of Mr. Obama ever taken. It caught the senator at a moment that might be exhaustion but looks like conceited smirking. When Der Spiegel featured Mr. Obama on its cover in March, the cover line was "The Messiah Factor." Must one add that this, too, was not meant to be taken at face value?

Europeans will be as relieved as 72 percent of Americans to see the end of the Bush administration, but their attitudes toward the Democratic candidate are far from being the same as the ones he arouses at home. Mr. Obama makes Europeans uncomfortable.

In Germany, politicians in front of large, shouting crowds evoke images that nobody wants to see repeated. But genuine worries about demagoguery are not all that's at issue. The mocking undertone that accompanies most descriptions of Mr. Obama in the European news media signifies a trans-Atlantic divide. George W. Bush made matters far worse than they ever were, but the neoconservatives who advised him were right about one thing: Europe is gripped by a world-weariness that resists American dreams.

Not every European shows scorn for Mr. Obama. Karsten Voigt, the astute coordinator of the German Foreign Ministry's America policies, thinks the United States is attempting a "complete renewal of its own political culture." But then, Mr. Voigt told me last week, he considers himself a Kantian. Very few Germans do. Robert Kagan, the conservative foreign-policy expert, once claimed that Americans are hard-headed Hobbesian realists, while Europeans are Kantian idealists, but he got it backwards. European institutions may be closer to those imagined by Enlightenment thinkers, but the Enlightenment's spirit crossed the Atlantic long ago. The whole-hearted enthusiasm of audiences back home is an American thing. Europeans wouldn't understand.

Berlin, in particular, is in the middle of a very post-heroic moment. Its former bravado about its history now approaches indifference. Take the awkward turquoise building where visitors from the West used to part from loved ones at the Friedrichstrasse border. Dubbed the "Palace of Tears" by East Berliners, it later symbolized the local talent for black humor and raw energy when it was turned into a disco after reunification. Surrounded by cranes at work on yet another office building, the Palace of Tears no longer has any function, nor anyone to complain about it.

So when Mr. Obama reminded Berliners of their greater moments - the airlift, the destruction of the wall - he risked more scoffing. There was plenty of speculation about which German sentence he would memorize to one-up John F. Kennedy's famous speech.

In fact, what Mr. Obama did was far more interesting. He studied a speech given by Ernst Reuter, West Berlin's beleaguered mayor during the 1948 airlift. When Reuter said, "People of the world, look at Berlin!" he was calling for help. When Mr. Obama echoed him, he was using the city as a model - for all the other possibilities that Berliners, and the rest of us, are slow to acknowledge.

This was no feel-good speech about working together. Mr. Obama's riff on the Berlin airlift was a reminder that you need not drop a bomb to be a hero, and that American influence lasts when we don't. Nor was he merely flattering his hosts about their achievements or calling to mind happier days of trans-Atlantic partnerships. He was using the past to remind us all that we need not resign ourselves to the way things are now. What better place to remember than in the heart of Berlin?

"No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions," said Ronald Reagan in his speech calling on Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the wall in front of the Brandenburg Gate. I remember that day in 1987: the eyeballs rolled upward amid jaded sighs. Mr. Reagan's hosts heard his remarks with not quite concealed contempt, for most saw his speech as a tiresome bit of American naivete. They had made their peace with a structure they thought would last forever - like the barrier between rich and poor nations whose existence, Mr. Obama concluded Thursday, is the greatest challenge of this century.

In other speeches, Mr. Obama has emphasized "the extraordinary nature of America," where loyalty is less about particular places or tribes than particular ideas: above all the idea that we are not constrained by accidents of birth. We can make of our lives what we will.

Nothing quite like this is open to Europeans. The German philosopher Juergen Habermas proposed that Germans cultivate what he calls constitutional patriotism, but neither the estimable Mr. Habermas nor his countrymen have found the language to inspire it. Americans are lucky that our national thinkers could write words that continue to ring.

Mr. Obama's speech gave Europeans a chance to hear the difference between optimism and idealism. Optimists refuse to acknowledge reality. Idealists remind us that it isn't fixed.

Source




Barack Obama - the earth didn't move for me

Comment from Britain



Barack in Berlin was hyped and touted to such a level that I raced downstairs to watch the live broadcast of him wowing the Germans on Thursday. Glass in hand, phones off the hook, expectant. Oooh, lovely sunny day for it, eh? Plenty of long-shots, distant views of the Brandenburg Gate, American flags, high crowd volume - expert foreplay, all in all.

Live speeches, like live rock concerts, do transport people. Once there were shamans and high priests and magicians to whip us up into altered states, now it's rock gods. And the occasional politician.

When he came floating out along the sea-blue walkway (wearing a sea-blue tie: nice touch, Obama-handlers!), I was ready for my Obamagasm

Bill Clinton always sucked me in, when he was on his hind legs and orating. Such a sexy beast of a politician, he was. Such a powerful speaker: sleepy eyes, steely hair, the hoarse, urgent, folksy voice like whipped butter dripping through cornbread. Until he bombed the aspirin factory, I'd have followed him anywhere.

Blair almost sucked me in. Just twice, back in the last century. For half an hour, during the speech that made him (Labour Party conference, 1994, the one where he ditched Clause 4), I got quite carried away. His brilliance burned the platform at Blackpool and I was among a frenzy of red-jacketed women worshippers. As he railed at Tory sleaze, I felt all the ancient atavistic political instincts twitching, just as they did when I was sweet and 20. All the ancient grievances and envies of youth against age, have-nots against haves, powerless against powerful, poor against rich. Luckily, I saw Alastair Campbell smirking afterwards and knew I'd been gulled.

And then for another 10 seconds, when a new dawn had broken, had it not? After the sleepless night and the Portillo moment and the excitable Peter Snow looking awestruck under the history-making red landslide? Even I thought, blimey, maybe he's the real deal. I gave him a pass, right up until he hammed up Diana's funeral. That deliberate crack in his actor's voice, those gulps and stammers, reminded me not to forget again that curmudgeon is my middle name.

I'd never watched Obama deliver a proper speech, only bits of debates with Hillary and endless snips from his stumping. US telly is viciously sound-bitey and repetitive and anyway, it's hell staying up until 4am only to get, "Yes we can!" and "Change we can believe in!" over and over.

But I wanted to see if he's any good, because I have little doubt that he's going to be the next US president. He is good, oratorically. I mean the process is good, and the presentation is terrific. Once you start listening to a man who clearly believes he can talk to crowds and keep his virtue, who speaks in lyrical cadences, who braces his words with pace and rhythm and proper care for the use of English, you do find yourself willing to be seduced.

Tall, dark and handsome, occasionally self-deprecating, at times, nearly witty - what's not to love? But the earth didn't move.

It's so easy-cheesy to flatter a crowd of (mostly young) Berliners on a sunny day in a handsome park in what we must accept is the de facto capital of the glorious EU. You can flatter their fathers' history, which is not that easy to do in Germany. (Margaret Thatcher had a hard time loving the reunification of a Greater Deutschland.) You can whip them up with constant references to "our generation" (that's you, kids) and give them lots of hope, via half-promises about working for climate change (wild applause) and peace in our time, "When we give meaning to the words, never again in Darfur!" (Yells and chants of Obama! Obama!).

People who want to win like channelling winners, hence all Obama's deliberate flicks towards the supremely charismatic JFK and America's all-time favourite prez, Ronald Reagan, both of whom rocked Berlin. Obama didn't lard the JFK resonances over much, probably for fear of being told: "Senator, you're no John F Kennedy," by some oldster, for whom John F Kennedy was "a friend of mine". But he jived through ol' Ron's famous soundbite ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!") over and over.

History has led us to a new crossroads, he said. "Walls came tumbling down all over the world!" He went in for a lot of wall-tearing-down. Some of them were concrete walls, the type with cement in, and some were metaphorical walls of division. I couldn't keep up. I assumed it was a metaphorical wall "between Christian and Muslims and Jews" until he finished: "these are the walls we must tear down!" (Screams, chanting, applause.) I hope he's told Israel.

Back to concrete for: "Not only have walls come down in Berlin (cheers), but they have come down in Belfast (screams, applause) where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together!" That's when I lost patience. Hmm, thinks I. Is it me, or didn't walls go up in Belfast after Blair's Good Friday agreement? I went to check on sluggerotoole.com, the brilliant Northern Ireland political website, and, lo: there was Slugger's Obama post. Headed: "Fine words about Belfast don't reflect reality" it was linked to a picture of a "peace line" (NI-speak for a massive great iron and concrete wall). Slugger O'Toole has gracious manners, and concluded his post ruefully: "Nice sentiments, Barack. But they don't reflect reality." He said at one point that he wanted a world that "favoured the many and not the few".

Oh, yeah: so did New Labour, and look where that got us. But was it a graceful little hat-tip to Blair? I wondered. Or wait! No. Maybe a little bon-bon for Gordon Brown when they meet tonight. I thought of Gordon watching Barack in Berlin, poor beast, chamfering under his loss in Glasgow East.

As he milked the applause (and he did milk it, quite shamelessly) I got seriously prickly armpits. My own curmudgeonly inner voice (That's enough! Just get off the bloody stage!) was amplified by memories of my late ma's endless Supergranny utterances, "Someone's getting overexcited" and "That baby wants putting down. Sharpish".

There'll be tears before bedtime, I reckon. It's a very unsexy thought, but that's what happens when you're ready for action and somebody flops

Source




Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor

'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children - as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America - each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world. The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe. S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations." He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. "Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

Source




Obama camp plasters posters at Western Wall

Advertises Democrat candidate's website, official slogan at Judaism's holiest site

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall - the holiest site in Judaism - with official campaign posters, WND has learned. Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential candidate's campaign. "These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site. Asked if it was traditional practice for politicians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No."

Obama campaign posters can be seen in media footage of the Illinois senator's early morning surprise visit to the Western Wall. His visit reportedly was not on the official campaign schedule. The posters display Obama's name in Hebrew. One poster erected on the main police barricade used by Obama to enter the holy site boasts the official red, white and blue campaign "O" symbol and advertises the candidate's campaign's website. A second poster also displays Obama's name in Hebrew and contains an image of Israeli and American flags.

Reuters posted images of the Obama campaign posters showing a handful of people waiting behind the police barricades. Reuters images had the following caption: "Supporters of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) stand behind banners printed with his name in Hebrew as they wait for his arrival at the Western wall." The caption implied supporters brought along the pro-Obama material.

But an eyewitness speaking to WND tells a different story. "The kids waiting for Obama may not even be Obama supporters. No one knew Obama was coming in advance. We saw the police barricades erected. We saw Obama's face on the posters, and some police said Obama was on his way. So a few people gathered by the barricades and waited for Obama," said the witness.

Obama's media relations department in the U.S. did not reply to a WND phone call request for comment. Obama arrived at about 5 a.m. Jerusalem time. He wore a Jewish skullcap and placed a prayer in the wall he said he had written. He bowed his head while a rabbi read a psalm calling for peace in the holy city.

According to media accounts, one worshipper repeatedly heckled Obama, chanting: "Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Jerusalem is our land."

After his brief visit to the holy site, Obama headed for Berlin, where he met with German leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He also delivered a major policy speech in front of Tiergarten Park's Victory Column, a 19th century structure in Berlin capped by a gilded angel.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





26 July, 2008

200,000 cheer on Obama, but will it help him?

Germans still like the Fascist "unity" message: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer", as they used to say in the 1930s

Barack Obama took his presidential road trip to Berlin today for a bold set-piece evoking the ghosts of past presidents - but again leaving himself open to accusations that he is all style and no substance. Senator Obama gave a speech in front of a staggering crowd of 200,000 people in front of Berlin's Victory Monument, near where the Berlin Wall once stood. Decades ago, president John F. Kennedy stood nearby and proclaimed "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" - but today was more a chance for Europeans to say "Ich Bin Ein Obama".



("I am not Bush")

In what is being billed as an "unprecedented" overseas campaign speech, Senator Obama also referenced Republican president Ronald Reagan in another attempt to show the bipartisan politics he says his campaign is all about. But Senator Obama's Republican rivals say his campaign is really all about putting on a spectacle at the expense of concrete ideas for the future - and reports on the speech suggest it will heavy on rhetoric and light on detail.

Senator Obama told the crowd that Americans and Europeans must tear down walls between estranged allies, races and faiths, in a soaring challenge to a new political generation. He warned that humanity must build "a world that stands as one". "The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another,"he said. "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand," he said, referring to festering divisions between Europe and the United States opened up by the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand," said Senator Obama, in an address beamed live on US and German television channels and to viewers around the world. "The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down," Senator Obama said, drawing cheers and applause. This echoed former president Reagan's call to then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Berlin in 1987 to "tear down this wall," before the fall of communism.

Senator Obama's strikingly audacious speech, in a fevered atmosphere in Berlin's famed Tiergarten, took the White House race abroad in a way never seen before, and confirmed Senator Obama as a global political phenomenon. But despite crowd chants of his slogan "Yes, we can" and its soaring cadences, the speech was short on specifics, and Senator Obama's foes will likely accuse him of empty rhetoric.

Its impact on American voters will also be closely watched, as huge crowds in Europe are no guarantee of success in US battleground states. Opinion polls since Senator Obama left home are yet to show him breaking out of a tight race with Senator McCain.

The crowd was put at more than 200,000 people by Michael Bengsch, media relations officer of Berlin Police. The Illinois senator's previous record crowd figure was 75,000, in Oregon during the primary campaign.

Senator Obama, who trails Republican candidate John McCain when voters are asked who would be the most credible commander in chief, used Berlin's triumph over division and totalitarianism as a metaphor for the world he hoped to forge. "People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one," Senator Obama said.

In a speech that risked being seen as presumptuous, considering Senator Obama will not even face US voters for another three months, he warned of a world where partnership was not a choice but the only means of survival. "We cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone," he said. He promised America under his watch would be serious about tackling global warning, a huge concern in Europe and a cause of rifts between the continent and the United States during the Bush administration.

But Europe must live up to its side of the bargain, he said, asking for more help in the struggle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Source




He ventured forth to bring light to the world

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

By Gerard Baker of the London "Times"

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites. And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world. And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it. And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet. In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace. As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over. The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again. Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times. Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him. And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not. On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One. And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."

Source




Obama's Ego Trip: Will the candidate's European progress backfire?



Presidential candidates traditionally visit foreign parts in order to impress on voters back home that they have a sure grasp of international affairs. Barack Obama's European expedition, however, is more of a premature celebration: part royal progress, part rock and roll tour. It will give him a chance to thank Europeans in advance for their support if he becomes president, while reassuring them that he has taken their views on board.

There is little doubt that Europeans would overwhelmingly vote for Obama if given the chance. The Guardian reported last week that the British, who turned on Tony Blair after he tied himself to President Bush's mast and who generally disapprove of the Iraq War, prefer Obama over John McCain by 53 percent to 11. (The remaining 36 percent expressed no opinion.) In Germany, according to the Telegraph, the figures are even more stark, with Obama attracting 67 percent support to McCain's 6.

Part of Obama's popularity has to do with Europe's intense antipathy toward Bush. The president has made little effort to woo the Europeans over the last seven years, and he studiously ignored their leaders' efforts, through the United Nations, to postpone the invasion of Iraq. Unlike his father, he was unable to assemble a grand coalition of Western allies, and he has paid a price for his independence. As so often happens in politics, the unpopularity of an incumbent heightens regard for his likely successor. (When Kenneth Clarke, a minister in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet, was asked who would succeed the Iron Lady if a bus were inadvertently to run her over, he responded, "Why, the bus driver, of course.") Obama's popularity largely rests on his not being Bush.

But Obama is treading a dangerous path. It would be rash to take a November victory for granted; if he has learned nothing else from his slim victory over Hillary Clinton, he should have learned that nothing is inevitable. He would not be the first front-runner to fall victim to hubris. Rather than revel in the adulation of adoring crowds, he would do better to confirm to skeptical American voters that he will not value the well-being of foreigners ahead of the interests of Americans. Only by stressing that as president he would, like his predecessors, put America first-thereby disillusioning the Europeans-will he be able to convince voters at home that he has his priorities right.

But it seems the Europeans are in no mood to be distracted from their Obamamania. The continent is considerably to the left of America, and its people are generally more liberal on such matters as abortion, the death penalty, and gun control. On all three issues, Obama has shown himself prepared to shift to more conservative positions in order to be more electable. If the Europeans have noticed this pragmatic change of tack, they have put it out of their minds. Further, Obama's early and long-standing opposition to the Iraq War has made him a standard bearer for an anti-Americanism that is now rife throughout the European Union. Many Europeans see his unusual family background and his mixed ethnicity as confirmation of their belief that he is not quite wholly American-that he is even, perhaps, un-American.

Much has been made about the scale of the American press circus accompanying Obama, and it is generally thought that pictures of him acknowledging the crowds' good wishes will boost his popularity at home. But if the coverage even hints at the un-American spirit in which he is being greeted as a prophet and a hero, his triumphant tour of European capitals will surely backfire.

Source




Obama trip press frenzy backfires

Many observers considered the press frenzy over the Senator Obama trip as one more data point of evidence about media bias in favor of Obama. The shear number of references to the"historic" or "unprecedented" trip have been sickening considering that the "unprecedented" trip to Iraq was proceeded by multiple trips over the last several years by Senator McCain.

However, despite the media attempt to keep the presidential race coverage one-sided, an odd thing happened on Barak's trip to Baghdad. A lot of Americans realized we are winning the war on terror.

Many have made note that as the surge succeeded and the bad news blissfully began to ebb, media coverage of Iraq thinned to a trickle. We knew it, but we couldn't measure the effects of the media callousness towards our military until now. It now appears indisputable that for many Americans who don't follow the news regularly there was a serious gap in what they believed was happening in Iraq and the reality of it.

Coinciding with the "Obama goes to Iraq" coverage comes a poll update by Rasmussen and released on July 23rd. And it shows that a very interesting thing happened last Monday. The number of respondent in this reoccurring poll who answered that we are winning against terrorists jumped to levels not seen in four years, to 51% - now a majority. Conversely, the number who considered al Qaeda and their ilk the victors dropped to a threadbare 16% of respondents, a new low by a wide margin. And it just so happened that this poll was conducted the same day that Obama and his media entourage hit Baghdad.

Although it is not definitive, it is a strong indication that all the media hype and attention on this trip refocused the media lens on Iraq and that Americans saw a new picture there. Ironically for Obama that new picture helps McCain by decreasing the common feeling of urgency which created the mood for immediate withdrawal at any price that Obama rode to the nomination.

For many who were afraid to read news about Iraq in 2008 (if they could find it) after the desperation felt in 2007, this new coverage opened their eyes. And these newly opened eyes just might be attached to ears that heard McCain claiming success and Obama dismissing our efforts in Iraq. The media attention has shown to an entirely new - admittedly previously disengaged - audience that McCain made the right call.

Some portray the success of the surge in McCain's case in political terms of winning the battle but losing the war. They claim he will be a victim of his own success. They claim that his surge strategy and success in Iraq reduced the threat to our nation which negates his advantage on security issues. They might have a point.

But a counter balance to that is that many Americans genuinely did not know that we have essentially won in Iraq until now. They thought that Obama was delivering the straight truth to them on Iraq. But now they know he was being less than candid. The Independents and conservative Democrats now might see that he was not telling them the truth.

A picture says a thousand words and those pictures of Obama in Iraq with no body armor are telling a different story than what he has been selling to the American people. And it was a fawning media brazenly trying to tip the scales in his favor that made it happen.

Source




A Tale of Two Flip-Floppers

By KARL ROVE

John McCain and Barack Obama have both changed positions in this campaign. That's OK. Voters understand that politicians can and, sometimes, should change their views. After all, voters do. Witness the wide swings in their answers to opinion polls. But before accepting the changes, voters typically ask themselves three questions: Does the candidate admit he's shifting? What's the new information that altered his thinking? Does the change seem reasonable and not calculating?

Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it. Of course, Mr. McCain doesn't explain why prices at the pump haven't also forced him to re-evaluate his opposition to drilling on 2000 acres in the 19.2-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But, then, what politician is always consistent?

Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.

At least Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes. Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.

Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed. By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.

It's dizzying. Yet, Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."

Compounding all this is Mr. Obama's stubborn refusal to admit the surge was right and that he was wrong to oppose it. On MSNBC in January 2007, he said more U.S. troops would not "solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Later that month he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." In fact, the surge has done far more than its advocates hoped in a much shorter period.

Yet Mr. Obama told ABC's Terry Moran this week that even in retrospect, he would oppose the surge. He also told CBS's Katie Couric that he had "no idea what would have happened" without the new strategy. And he still declares, in the New York Times last week, "The same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true." Given all that has happened, it's hard to understand how Mr. Obama can say, as he did Tuesday in a story on NBC Nightly News, that "I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face."

Americans have seen both candidates flip-flop. Mr. McCain at least has a record of being a gutsy leader willing to take unpopular stands who admits his shifts and explains the new information that caused them. Mr. Obama has detached himself from past positions at record speed. And in doing so he runs the risk of being seen as a cynical politician, not an inspiring leader. If this happens, voters in large numbers may ask -- despite his rhetorical acrobatics -- if he is the change they've been waiting for.

Source




Swooning over Princess Obama

Comment from Melanie Phillips in Britain



There's been nothing like it since Beatlemania. As the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama arrives in Britain tomorrow on the last leg of his world tour, Obamania seems to be sweeping across the Atlantic and carrying all before it. In giant rallies across the U.S., Obama induces hysteria among his adoring multitude, with women fainting from the effects of his soaring oratory and rock-star charisma. On both sides of the Atlantic the media are swooning over him. Like Berlin and Paris, he is expected to receive a rapturous reception here. Labour MPs are urging Gordon Brown to emulate him, while a third of Tory MPs are said to support him rather than his Republican opponent, John McCain.

The U.S. election may not take place until November, but in Europe Obama has already won by a landslide. Nor does he do anything to disabuse people of the view that he is `the One'. He is going to win the war in Iraq. He's going to break the deadlock in the Middle East. In the U.S., he declared his presidency would be seen as `the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'. Doubtless as the water recedes he will walk on it. His tour is supposed to be merely a fact-finding exercise for an election candidate - but it is being treated as a cross between a coronation and the Second Coming.

So at the risk of being a party pooper, may I pose the question: might not a junior senator with less than four years' experience on Capitol Hill be advised to show just a smidgen of humility? Significantly, on his first foreign foray he has achieved the feat of upsetting one of his country's key allies, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel. She took a decidedly dim view of his intention to hold an electioneering rally today at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate - traditionally used as a backdrop only for non-partisan speeches of global significance. Faced with this rebuff, Obama chose the city's Victory Column as an alternative venue. How darkly ironic that the column was moved to its present position by Adolf Hitler as a symbol of Germany's superiority and its victories against Denmark, Austria and France. Oh, dear. Is this what Obama means by `change we can believe in'?

Of course, in many respects the enthusiasm for this charismatic man is understandable. Obama preaches a seductive message of change for an America which is terminally disaffected with President Bush - not just over the Iraq war, but over the handling of such catastrophes as Hurricane Katrina and, above all, the dive in the U.S. economy. All this spells failure, depression and cynicism. Obama by contrast embodies success, optimism and idealism. Sprinkled with glitter like a latter-day JFK, he is seen as the representative of a new kind of politics that repudiates the sordid failures of the past.

Americans are, after all, the most optimistic of people. They just don't do doom and gloom. So a politician who tells them `Yes we can', and says he stands for `the audacity of hope' gets them whooping and hollering for more.

But such Obamania should worry us all, for it is based on emotion and, where the Democrat candidate is concerned, the normal faculties of judgment appear to have been suspended. Important questions about Obama's judgment, consistency and honesty are not being asked, let alone answered. He has got away with the fact that for 20 years he belonged to a church which preaches black power racism against white people. He disavowed his long-time mentor, pastor Jeremiah Wright, only when his extreme views could no longer be ignored - despite the fact that Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the black power Nation of Islam.

The media brush all this aside as `personal details' which are of no interest to voters. But if, say, John McCain's pastor and mentor had turned out to support the Ku Klux Klan and his church was found to be sympathetic to its philosophy, his candidacy would have been defenestrated and rightly so.

Equally troubling is the way Obama has flip-flopped on issue after issue. From his brief Senate voting record, he appears to be the most Left-wing presidential candidate America has ever had. Yet once he clinched the nomination, he repositioned himself as a Centrist to win the election. So while once he was for a ban on handguns, he is now against it. Once for safeguards on wiretaps, he is now against them. Once he was for a fixed timetable for withdrawal from Iraq - but now that the acclaimed U.S. commander General Petraeus has said this would be deeply unwise, Obama claims he proposes no `rigid' adherence to a timetable. This is just more of the same old politics of dissembling.

And yet this is the man - so similar to the early Blair - who is supposed to represent an end to opportunism, replaced by the politics of integrity. What is even more disturbing, however, is that these matters are being brushed aside or ignored -because so many people want desperately to believe in him. Such a suspension of disbelief calls to mind someone else closer to home: Princess Diana, who also inspired hysterical adoration because she, too, became an icon of idealism - challenging the established order.

A deeply attractive figure, she seemed to embody hope for a better universe by appealing to emotion rather than reason. Love, as embodied by `the queen of people's hearts', was held to be the key to a better, kinder, gentler world. There was even a sense that her mere touch was sufficient to heal the afflicted. It was, of course, all pure fantasy. People had fallen for a carefully spun image which bore little relation to the manipulative and unstable woman who was the real Diana, but which spoke to something deep inside them.

So it is with Obama. Americans' natural optimism makes them want to believe that, as a black man with a Muslim background (another thing he has cleverly obfuscated), he can heal all wounds, including the U.S.'s history of racism, and bring peace to the world just by being who he is. They see in his attractiveness a flattering reflection of themselves. He doesn't embarrass them; he makes them feel proud...

To be fair, there are signs that light may be beginning to dawn in America. Despite - or perhaps because of - the saturation media coverage of Obama's world tour, his poll numbers are showing no bounce. This may be because people are beginning to see the media manipulation, with Obama refusing to answer journalists' questions and participating only in `faked' interviews by the military in Iraq. While America may be wising up, however, Britain is about to have its Princess Obama moment. Get out the smelling salts and prepare to swoon.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





25 July, 2008

The Obama birthplace questions remain



David Weigel of Reason stews over the latest on the Baby Barack birth certificate mystery - apparently someone has dredged up a contemporaneous birth announcement in Hawaii, which certainly is consistent with the notion that he was born there, rather than borne there. Yet questions remain! And Mr. Weigel mocks those questions thusly:

The idea of Obama's family collaborating to create a false biography for him is, in itself, hilarious. How did those 1961 dinner table conversations go, do they think? "If we don't create a false story, and fast, our half-African son of an 18-year old mother will have no chance at becoming president!"

Har de har. But seriously, folks - I can think of three reasons in five seconds, all of which would have been perfectly likely to have occurred to Obama's proud mama back in 1961:

1. Simple patriotism/nationalism - Obama's mom wanted her son to be an American like her.

2. Common sense - US citizenship was highly likely to be more valuable than Kenyan citizenship.

3. Legal protection in the possibly-foreseeable event of a custody dispute. Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, may have contemplated the following rather ghastly scenario: Suppose Mr. Obama took his black son, a native of Kenya, back to Kenya to be raised by his family. Suppose it became clear in court that the child's parents were not in fact married. How much success might Ms. Dunham anticipate in battling in the Kenyan courts for the right to take a Kenyan citizen back to America to be raised by white folks? Isn't it dimly possible that Ms. Dunham wanted to secure her custody of the child by assuring his US citizenship? Or is that just ha-ha ridiculous? Mr. Obama did in fact leave for Harvard a couple of years later, so it is not impossible that Ms. Dunham sensed she was not in a solid long-term relationship.

I am not advocating for any of the outre birth certificate scenarios. But I am advocating for better rebuttals. HMMM: OK, here is Captain Ed:

Unless someone wants to argue that the Advertiser decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama's birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President, then I'd say the "mystery" is over.

See above - the teenage mom may have had plenty of timely reasons to promote the notion of her child's eligibility for US citizenship having nothing to do with her son's Presidential prospects. That said, the idea that a bum birth certificate is going to swing this election is, well, interesting in an "out there" way.

Source




Tired Old Lying Obama - Claims to be member of Senate Banking Committee when he's not



Yet another gaffe (I've lost count). This time the Light Being claims to be places in the Senate he has never been! CNN calls it an "incorrect statement". Come on! If I tell someone I'm George Clooney I'm either a nut or a liar. Take your pick!

"Responding to an Israeli reporter's question Wednesday on his commitment to protect the Jewish state, Barack Obama pointed to a bill "we passed" in the U.S. Senate Banking Committee that tightens sanctions and authorizes divestment from Iran. "My committee," he called it.

Except that he isn't a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

"Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon," Obama said at a press conference in Sderot, Israel."

Source




OBAMA KEEPS ARABS BEHIND VEIL

There is something that Barack Obama's campaign doesn't want you to see: The candidate among the Arabs. In his whirlwind tour, the candidate sped through this city where he is held in joyous high regard both for his Muslim roots and the perception, rightly or wrongly, that he might pursue a more "even-handed" Middle East policy (read: more pro-Arab, less pro-Israel).

If Obama had chosen to linger in Jordan more than just eight hours yesterday, he could have headlined a rally here that would have drawn enough jubilant Muslim supporters to fill the Dead Sea.

But the last thing Obama's campaign - which brilliantly choreographs every event - wants are pictures of him before a multitude of ecstatic Arabs. Such images would terrify American voters already wary of the guy with the funny-sounding name, and only serve to reinforce the widespread myth that Obama is a Muslim. Instead, the campaign will let you see a mass rally in Berlin, with thousands of supporters - possibly 100,000 or more - cheering and fainting and crying.

The campaign also will let you see Obama in Jerusalem thronged by Jews, possibly even visiting the Western Wall, and mingling in solidarity with Israelis in the embattled town of Sderot, the favored target for Palestinian rocket attacks.

But no Arabs. They've been pushed out of the picture just like those two veiled Muslim-American girls who attended an Obama rally in Detroit not long ago. Instead of holding a public event here - say, a visit to a Jordanian school, a small business or a health-care center - Obama chose only to answer questions from reporters at a press conference and dine privately with King Abdullah.

"People on the street don't even know that he is here," explained one veteran Jordanian journalist here. "Everyone would like to come out and cheer him, but I know that would probably hurt him in America."

Source




Barack Obama vows to strengthen Israel ties

COMMITTING the US to even closer ties to Israel, Barack Obama yesterday wrapped up a campaign-style sweep through the Jewish state and the West Bank in one of the most politically high-risk stops of his run for the White House. The Democratic nominee followed a path well worn by high-profile visitors - including his Republican rival John McCain - going first to the Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, then the battered Israeli border town of Sderot.

The Illinois senator also met almost a full house of Israeli politicians, many of whom were sceptical about his positions on sensitive issues, such as the future of Jerusalem and his attitude to the Palestinian Authority.

Senator Obama started his tour at his Jerusalem hotel, only 200m from the scene of a bulldozer rampage on Tuesday, meeting first Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

He later visited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, something Senator McCain did not do during his visit in March. His courtesy call at the presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah went some way to offsetting Palestinian resentment at a comment Senator Obama made during his Democratic campaign, in which he said Jerusalem should remain undivided.



[Note background. Sure to impress Israel supporters]

The Holy City is split into Arab and Jewish sectors and Palestinians saw the remarks as a prejudgment on final-status talks in which Arab East Jerusalem is enshrined as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Israeli politicians also turned up the heat on their most sensitive foreign policy issue, Iran, forcing Senator Obama to again declare his hand on his stance towards the hardline state if he won the presidency. "I want input and insight from Israeli leaders about how they see the current situation," he said. "I will share some of my ideas. The most important thing for me to share is the historic and special relationship between the United States and Israel, one that cannot be broken. One that I have affirmed throughout my career and one that I will intend to not only continue but strengthen in an Obama administration."

As Senator Obama took to the streets, Senator McCain hit the airwaves, trying to deny his rival political mileage, while attempting to assert himself as a stronger candidate on national security and foreign policy.

Jordan's King Abdullah told Senator Obama that ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and achieving a just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict "tops the priorities of the people of the Middle East" and would bolster US credibility.

In an interview with a US television network, Senator Obama supported a pre-emptive Israeli airstrike on an alleged Syrian nuclear reactor last September, claiming Israel was often forced to make difficult judgments. "The Israelis live in a very tough neighbourhood where a lot of folks publicly proclaim Israel as an enemy and then act on those proclamations," he said. "I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing a site using a nuclear ... or using a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model."

Eight hours before he landed in his presidential campaign jet, a Palestinian resident of East Jerusalem commandeered a bulldozer, which he used to attack cars and buses in a 200m rampage. Up to 16 people were wounded, but no one was killed in the second such attack in three weeks. Senator Obama said the attack was "a reminder of what Israelis have had to courageously live with on a daily basis for far too long".

He pledged to use his administration - if elected - to reinvigorate the moribund peace process. However, he took a cautionary tone, saying: "I think it's unrealistic to expect that a US president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region."

Source




Obama supports Indentured Servitude

On several occasions I have have lamented the declining standard of activism:

Activist: A person who believes so strongly that a problem needs to be remedied that she dedicates substantial time to ... getting other people to fix the problem. It used to be that activists sought voluntary help for their pet problem, and thus retained some semblance of honor. However, our self-styled elite became frustrated at some point in the past that despite their Ivy League masters degrees in sociology, other people did not seem to respect their ideas nor were they particularly interested in the activist's pet issues. So activists sought out the double shortcut of spending their time not solving the problem themselves, and not convincing other people to help, but convincing the government it should compel others to fix the supposed problem. This fascism of good intentions usually consists of government taking money from the populace to throw at the activist's issue, but can also take the form of government-compelled labor and/or government limitations on choice.

It seems that there is a surprisingly large coalition ready to take this to its logical extreme: A group called Service Nation is set to spend a ton of money lobbying the government to create a program to force every young person into servitude by 2020.

Not satisfied with taking 20-40% of our income to spend as they see fit, the government hopes also to be able to order around the labor of millions of young adults. I feel like I am reading some bizarre historical re-enactment of the Soviet or Chinese youth programs. This whole program, which I am tentatively going to label "happy face fascism," makes me so sick I can't even address it further tonight. More later.

PS: This is, not coincidentally, exactly the idea Obama has been pushing (here and here). I say not coincidentally, because this is how one skirts stupid campaign finance laws - you get your supporters to take your top campaign planks and run with them as "independent" efforts that are not subject to campaign finance restrictions.

PPS: Just to head off an argument that came up last time in the comments, I have been a consistent opponent of the military draft as well.

Update: I know the allusion is over-used, but we are in 1984-land when people keep using the term "voluntary universal national service" as do the leaders of this effort. By universal, they mean that everyone has to do it. So they are calling for "national service that everyone is required by law to perform but is voluntary." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The solution is to develop a system of voluntary universal national service for our country and for the world. To call upon all young adults to take at least one year to learn the hard and rugged skills of practicing idealism.

Yes, lets teach them the "hard and rugged skills" of being forced to do labor that no one is willing to pay for voluntarily, so must be performed by slaves instead.

Source




A conservative and pro-U.S. Arab explains why President Obama will be a great disappointment

If you ask any Obama supporter, they will tell you that they are supporting the man because he gives them hope. Now, Oscar Wilde once said that the basis of all hope is fear, and I intend to agree with Wilde on that one. So what exactly are the Obama supporters afraid of? Well, it's really simple, after 8 years of Bush, and of having the government repeatedly inform them that they are living in a threatening world that doesn't like them (which, by the way, is true, and it disliked them during Clinton's presidency too I may add) and that they are going to have to hunker down, get though and prepare to fight this for the long haul, they are afraid that this is really the way the world is. Enter Obama, who tells them in all kinds of inspiring fashion that this isn't necessarily true, that the world isn't really dangerous and that all we need to do is to talk to one another, and then all will be well in the world and we will all sing Kumbaya together. So, desperate and clinging to anything, they believe him, because the alternative is so scary, so stressful and depressing, that they may have to up their Zoloft dosage , and anti-depressants are really expensive nowadays.

Not to mention, Americans really want the world to like them, which is a silly desire shared by no other nation on earth. You don't see the Russians worrying about the world liking them, or the Chinese. Ok, you want a democracy? How about the French? Do you see the French worrying about whether or not the world likes them? Do you know of any other nation in the world who actually has this stupid girl-with-low-self-esteem-in- junior-high fixation? Hell, even the Israelis, arguably the current most hated country in the world (and who would like a nation of militaristic Jews who refuse to be wiped out? Those Damn Jooz!), are not as fixated on getting the world to like them the way the Americans do, because most of them have resigned themselves that the world really never will like them. So yeah, the Americans stand alone when it comes to that silly desire, and they have constructed a notion why the world dislikes them: It's because the world thinks that they are a racist nation that is also prejudiced against Islam. So, in order to remedy that, they vote and nominate a Black man with an arab middle-name who comes from a Muslim Background, as if saying, "Here! This is how far we all willing to go. Do you like us now?" And the world will answer: Ehh, no, not really!

There are those who will argue with this, citing great support for Obama all over Europe and the world. True, but that's because he is the Anti-Bush, an articulate black man who says he doesn't want war. The world would love fuckin Gary Coleman if he was the person who said this after 8 years of Bush. Plus, the world is excited for the Obama presidency because they view it as some sort of novelty, the black man who became President after all of the country's history of slavery. Americans forget that thanks to their endless stream of movies and TV shows that have addressed the history and extent of racism in the US, we all know the backstory and the struggles and Rosa Parks and Malcom X and MLK and all of this fun stuff. So, really, it's like watching a 250 year old movie where one character keeps getting screwed over and finally, through a lot of fighting, becomes President. Oh Happy Ending. We love Happy endings. What we didn't wrap our head around yet is that this isn't a movie. There is no Fade to Black after Obama takes office. He actually becomes the President and executer of policies. He will become a symbol of the country people love to hate, and this won't exactly end because he is a smooth talking good looking black guy. It's a ncie fantasy, but let's get real here. There are too many people who have vested interest in hating the US and always will hate it, no matter who the f*ck runs it. Now let's examine this notion a little.

Unarguably , Obama's number one foreign policy objective is to get things right with the arab and muslim world. And that's when you are going to watch the best circus in the world, because no a single leader, in the arab or the muslim world, really wants to get right with the US. Hell, our rulers have justified their entire existence in power by positioning themselves as opposed to America . They continue , in their state-sponsored media, to point fingers at the US and go " See, those bloodthirsty Americans. They will kill you all, rape all of your women and drink the blood of your babies, if we are not here to protect you. So eat shit and shut up!", and If you think I am exaggerating please check Egypt, Syria, Iran, Yemen, etc.. etc.. Those people have built their entire rule on that whole notion, you think they are going to give that up because the silly Americans voted for a 40-something inexperienced Black dude? Get real! And in terms of the arab and muslim street, let's not forget that their number one issue has always been Israel. Now, do you think Obama will go against Israel, after watching him kissing for hours AIPAC ass? Ha. So yeah, that will be a disappointment also. Not to mention that Obama won't withdraw from Iraq. He won't. He can't. At best he will do a partial withdrawal, while leaving a good chunk of US soldiers there. But bring all the troops home? Not gonna happen. And that's what the arab and muslim street wants, no? Let's not even contemplate the notion for a second that he is serious about going after Pakistan, like he said over and over again. Yeah, the Obama foreign policy will be- in the words of the great Borat- GREAT SUCCESS! I am sure.

Oh, and I am sure that once he gets elected that the Islamists will warm up to him immediately. You know, because there is nothing that Islamists like more than a former born- muslim who chose, by his own accord, to become a Christian and an active one at that. Yeah, I am sure they will be very impressed, and quit fighting the US immediately. After all, he said that he intends to deliver a speech from a muslim nation in his first 100 days of office. Yeah, that kind of pandering really calms islamists down, especially coming from apostates. And they will surely respect him if he withdraws partially from Iraq, and not mistake it as a sign of weakness or that they are winning or anything. And since we are on the topic, can you imagine what will happen if a terrorist attack took place during the Obama Presidency, after he does all of this? Can you imagine how America will feel, when they realize that even after they voted for the Blackman with Arab middle name and Muslim background who gave a speech during his first 100 days in a muslim nation, that the world still hates them and that Islamists still want to kill them? Talk about a rude awakening. And can you imagine if they do demand a response from Obama, and Obama decides to take off the Dove hat and put the Hawk one on? Do I have to remind you how things went the last time a Dove tried to be a Hawk? Olmert and Peretz (who both, may I remind you , ran on the platform of withdrawing from the Westbank) during the Lebanon war, anyone? Ok, how about Carter and the rescue mission in Iran? How about Clinton in Somalia? We getting the picture? Should be a fantastic fun time for everyone involved.

But let's say you are the kind of American who doesn't care about all that, like this silly American chick I met here a week ago, who told me that "the basis of hope is hope" and "I really don't care if your people like us, I just want to be proud of my country again!". Ok, fair enough. So one would assume you are supporting Obama for domestic policy reasons. That you believe that he will clean Washington from the Special Interests and the lobbying and all that Jazz he has been talking about, and implements his "Socialism is fun" electoral program, aided surely, by the fact that the House and the Senate looks like it will tilt in favor of the democrats again this year, finally giving them full majority in both the house and Senate. I am sure he will be able to cut out the special interests and implement his policies in a Jiffy, right?

Ehh, nope. Because even if he is not beholden to special interests- which I am not sure is exactly true-every single politician in the House and the Senate is, and they kinda like their seats. Not to mention, about half of the democrats who won in 2006 were Pro-War, Pro-Guns, Anti-Abortion democrats- i.e. confused republicans- who will undoubtedly, given how they are now fully in power, start fighting amongst themselves in earnest, the way the democrats always do. And if you don't believe me, check 1992, the first Clinton Presidential term. It's the Same shit. Charismatic unlikely democrat in the white house after 12 years of republican rule, bridled with unrealistic expectations of a starved political base who somehow expected him to miraculously solve all of their problems in the first 100 days, and had the majorities in the House and the Senate to pull it off. But he didn't. He couldn't. The Democrats were too busy fighting amongst themselves, and he was too busy trying to be a centrist and work with an institution that wouldn't work and all the hopes, dreams and expectations evaporated by the end of his first year in office. But yeah, I am sure the Obama first term will be different, because, like, he is Black. Oh, and a Washington outsider. Yes, that's the kind of person who can get things done in Congress, no doubt! But I digress, when I think of Obama, I don't think of Clinton. At the end of the day, everyone knew that Clinton would play Ball and isn't exactly driven by his own ideological view and belief in his own goodness. Nahh, when I think Obama, one name really comes to mind: Carter!

Obama is the second coming of Carter, there is no doubt about it. From the way he took over the party, to the election against an uncharismatic standard-bearer opponent in the elections, to his belief that America is bad, and it's all America's fault anyway, and that all that is necessary to make everything work is appeasement and humility, and oh, let's try to fix are suffering economy by implementing socialist ideas. So yeah, if you are reading this and you remember those days, then please brace yourself, because it's gonna suck again for the next four years. But don't fret, there is a bright side to this, because remember, after Carter came Reagan. And maybe that's what America needs right now. To experiment with Obama to see if there is any truth to his fiction. If there is, sweet, I am not gonna hate, but there likely isn't, and that will be the necessary wake-up call that half of the US have been needing for the past 4 years. That's what it's gonna take: a colossal presidential failure of the size of Carter (whose approval ratings, by the way, make Bush's look really high, believe it or not), to get the US back into thinking about how to deal with their problems, instead of pretending they don't exist.

That being said, I will feel bad for Obama when this eventually happens though, because unlike every other President before him, Obama isn't just running as himself, he is running as the Black Candidate, so when he fails, it's not just him that will be looked upon as a failure, but his race with him. The nice white people of America will congratulate themselves when he is elected for no longer being a racist nation (they did elect a black man after all) and when he fails they probably wouldn't run another Black candidate for President for another 30 years or so. Not to mention, after Obama, being a black candidate won't be a big deal anymore. The novelty would've worn off, and the candidates will be assessed based on their experience and their plans, instead of just being an inspiring notion whose time has come as a Black Man for President of the USA. I hope this wouldn't be the case, but, ehh, I doubt it!

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





24 July, 2008

Dems Slip in Congressional Poll; McCain and Obama Now Tied

It's doubtful Barack Obama's media cheerleaders will notice since they're so in the tank for their guy, but the poll numbers for The Messiah have been steadily eroding the past two weeks to where he and Senator McCain are now tied, according to the latest Rasmussen numbers. If you look at the daily numbers the past two weeks, you'll notice Obama's six-point edge has disappeared.

How is this happening with all the slavish attention for Obama's world tour? Well, it could be people are so turned off by the fawning coverage of Obama, which has gotten so ridiculous in recent days to the point where even the leftist media is noticing how out of control it is.

Meanwhile, the generic Congressional ballot, which had the Democrats up 14 points last month has now eroded to nine points. Hmm. Might the public finally be realizing what a lousy job the Pelosi Congress has been doing? It may finally have occurred to those complaining about $4 a gallon gas that they may wind up paying much more with a No-Drill Congress and a pliable President Obama?

Just imagine if the media coverage of Obama and McCain were anywhere near remotely fair and balanced.

Source




Andrea on Obama Trip: 'What Some Would Call Fake Interviews'

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out.

Before Mitchell made her displeasure known, Roger Simon of Politico, Chris Matthews's other guest during the segment, depicted the images coming out of the war zone as all Obama could have dreamed of.

ROGER SIMON: The optics are all very good on this trip. I mean, the beginning of this trip is so good, Senator Obama might just want to call off the end and just keep running the videotape.

He goes into a gym, everybody, all the service people there cheer. He shoots a basket, you know, it goes through the hoop. He's obviously standing there with troops, they seem to be liking him, smiling. They don't seem to feel that Barack Obama wants to desert them, to leave them in Iraq. This is exactly what the Obama campaign hoped for, and this was supposed to be the tough part of the trip. The meatiest part of the trip in Jordan and Israel may be tough in terms of foreign policy, but the back end of the trip to cheering European crowds will certainly be as good if not better than this. So I think he's feeling very good right now.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea, I want to get ethnic a little bit here --

ANDREA MITCHELL: This is message --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, go ahead, please.

MITCHELL: Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

When Matthews inquired about the atmospherics of the trip, Mitchell made clear her frustration as a reporter.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of servicepeople who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story?

MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

Good on Andrea. Now, will the rest of the MSM press the Obama campaign to release the outtakes from the war zone?

Source




Obama Comes Up Short in Approach to Poverty

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Does government do enough to help the poor? John McCain and Barack Obama could not be more divided on their approach. Obama's Web site even has a section entitled "poverty," with a large list of new antipoverty programs, while McCain's doesn't. Yet, this is part of a bigger difference between the campaigns in whether to single out specific groups for help.

While Obama's Web site includes issue headings for "women," "rural," "seniors" and "disabilities," McCain's Web site generally focuses only on broad "issues" that affect everyone, such as "energy," "education," and "economic plan." Both Web sites have sections on veterans.

On poverty, Obama has a very long list of proposals, including government-created "transitional jobs and career pathway programs," a "Green Jobs Corps," money to ensure that "low-income Americans have transportation access to jobs" and provide a large array of new social programs specifically targeted to criminals when they are released from prison.

Those are just his top four proposals. Others include trained registered nurses for home visits to all low-income expectant mothers and first time mothers, a $500 tax credit to all low and middle income people who are working, an affordable housing trust fund, other tax benefits for the poor, a new health care program for the uninsured, and so on. Other proposals -- such as expanding paid sick days for low-wage workers and higher minimum wages -- would have to be paid for by employers.

While Obama talks about personal responsibility, he proposes a government program to be involved in every aspect of people's lives. By contrast, McCain's programs are generally not set up specifically to help just the poor. The poor benefit much more from educational choice for their kids, primarily because their children are in the worse schools. Tax credits for individuals buying health insurance give individuals portability and the choice of which insurer suits them best. Both proposals help the poor, but they also help all Americans. Lowering corporate tax rates increases companies' incentives to invest in their workers.

Yet, before figuring out what new programs we should have, it might be useful to re-examine the welfare system we already have. A new book, "Stealing from Each Other, How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit" by Edgar Browning, an economics professor at Texas A&M University and a world-renowned expert on government finance, has added up the costs and consequences of the existing programs.

By 2005, the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives pointed out 85 separate programs that primarily aided persons with limited incomes. Total federal, state, and local expenditures amounted to $620 billion. That came to $16,750 per person in poverty, or over $50,000 for a welfare family of three, several times higher than the official poverty line for a family of three, which was $15,577 in 2005.

Browning estimates that only 10 percent of these expenditures went to administrative costs. He provides some perspective: "We are already spending more than enough to completely eliminate poverty, even if the poor have zero earnings or other sources of income on their own." The official government estimates of the number of poor people rarely count the government aid when calculating the poor's income. Browning also notes that there are so many programs and some are so complicated, "no one understands fully how the welfare system operates."

Yet even these numbers underestimate how much help the government spends on the poor. For example, Social Security does not provide benefits that are proportional to what people pay into the system. The system provides large transfers from high-income to low-income individuals. Browning estimates the welfare portion of Social Security accounts for $100 billion a year. According to him, adding this to Medicare, other uncompensated medical care, and other costs increases welfare payments to over $1 trillion in 2005. By comparison, Browning has noted elsewhere that the first five years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost $473 billion, less than half what the war on poverty spent in one year.

But the desire to help the poor creates its own problems. Giving more money to people, the poorer they are, also means that the more income these poor individuals make, the more government assistance is taken away from them. Just as higher taxes discourage work, the loss of a significant portion of one's benefits will also discourage work.

Unfortunately, many of Obama's proposals learn little from this lesson. Raising the minimum wage at the same time that mandates are put on companies that want to hire poor people will make it so that firms won't want to hire those workers. And the people who are hired will get fewer fringe benefits and shorter hours. Minimum wage jobs are also the first jobs people get that give them training, which makes better jobs possible in the future. At the same time, expanding the size of income support and housing allowances creates more of an incentive not to work.

Obama's plans try to offset some of these problems with other new programs that make a complicated and at times contradictory set of programs even more complicated. To offset the disincentives for training, new government training programs will be set up. There is a twist in that many will be set up in politically correct jobs such as the environment. Other subsidies will be set up to attempt to offset the disincentives to work.

The differences between Obama's and McCain's approaches couldn't be starker. While neither Obama nor McCain will eliminate any of the existing programs aimed toward the poor, McCain also doesn't try to use new programs, subsidies, and taxes to coax people into certain jobs. He wants to let people decide for themselves what choices they like best.

Obama might urge that black Americans take more personal responsibility, but his programs have government agencies trying to micromanage their lives. McCain's policies fit better than Obama's do with Obama's rhetoric.

Source




One Conventional Bomb Can Ruin Your Whole Day

Taranto on the latest Obagaffe

We'll give you three guesses which political leader said this:

Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

Hint: The speaker was born in Hawaii. Thinking that perhaps it was a transcription error, we checked the video, and sure enough, he actually said "the bomb." Could our speaker be mixing up Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? In any case, it's perhaps the biggest Pearl Harbor goof since Sept. 7, 1988, when George H.W. Bush got the month of the attack wrong.




US media in love with Obama, says McCain camp

The media and Barack Obama should get a room together if they're so in love

The wall-to-wall coverage of Barack Obama's overseas visit was too much for the campaign of Republican rival John McCain - which has accused the US media of being "in love" with the Democratic presidential candidate. "It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama," the campaign said in an email unveiling a new video, featuring television reporters praising Senator Obama. "Some may even say it's a love affair. The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny."

The video shows pundits speaking about Senator Obama and the buzz surrounding his campaign. It includes apparent quotes from one reporter saying people who have not seen the candidate in person are "not cool". It then shows a quote of the reporter saying his knees "quaked a bit". It also shows journalists on Senator Obama's plane apparently urging him to strike a pose while on the phone and demanding an "agent" move out of their view of him. Two versions of the video are on the site, featuring different, syrupy love songs playing in the background. Readers can vote for their favourite version.

Republican spin doctors are trying to portray Senator Obama as presumptuous over his major Middle East and Europe tour with presidential trappings, and accused him of ignoring the advice of Iraq war commander General David Petraeus. But Senator Obama said he hoped he would not have to spar with Senator McCain while he was overseas talking about issues of great importance to Americans, despite grabbing a string of photo-ops that are political gold back home.

Senator McCain is himself no stranger to good relations with the US media, who portray him as a straight-talking maverick eager to stare down elements of his party. He has famously referred to reporters as "my base".

Senator Obama held his first major press conference abroad as presumptive Democratic nominee in the shadow of Jordan's Temple of Hercules, a shrine to the mighty Greek mythic hero. Overlooking sun-bleached homes and minarets of the Jordanian capital, Senator Obama spoke about his stealth mission to Iraq, against a backdrop seemingly chosen to suggest a young dynamic potential president, at home and abroad. It was another example of the Obama campaign's flair for political imagery, and a world away from frigid icebound Iowa, or hard-knocks schools in Ohio where presidential candidates usually hang out.

After knocking the dust of Iraq off his boots, Senator Obama swapped his khakis and flak jacket for a suit and red tie. The show was designed to draw a blanket television audience back home, as part of a tour that has ignited a media frenzy, despite Republican claims it is a shallow political stunt. The symbolism seemed to convince one local journalist, who yelled "Mr President" to get her voice heard above the pack at the temple press conference.

With his media pack poised for a gaffe, Senator Obama stuck largely to a news-free spiel, though did make one faux pas. "Israel is a strong friend of Israel's," he said, in a statement that even his opponents could not quibble with.

Source




Germans love Obama -- but will not do anything for him

Germany's Social Democrats are feting Barack Obama's visit to Berlin this week, but behind the scenes they are distancing themselves from the Democratic Party's candidate. Leading SPD members are warning Obama against demanding more German troops for Afghanistan.

In the run-up to Barack Obama's visit to Berlin, leading foreign and security policy experts for Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) are warning the United States presidential candidate against making any far-reaching demands on the Germans. "Obama should only ask of us what we are able to deliver," Niels Annen -- a member of Germany's federal parliament, with the left wing of the SPD -- told SPIEGEL ONLINE Monday. "We won't increase our number of troops."

Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet, however, has approved a plan to increase the number of troops from Germany's armed forces in Afghanistan by 1,000 to 4,500 soldiers. All troop deployments of the Bundeswehr require a mandate from the German parliament, which is expected to consider the issue in the autumn. And SPD party chief Kurt Beck made clear over the weekend that 4,500 was the ceiling of what could be expected from Germany. The Social Democrats -- who are the junior partner in the grand coalition government with Merkel and her conservative Christian Democrats -- are hoping Obama will take heed of German sensitivities when he visits Thursday. "The senator is smart enough to give a speech here that will be met with applause," Annen said.

The party's defense policy spokesman, Rainer Arnold, also called on Obama to be cautious. "It's part of NATO custom not to overburden partners," he told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There is no point in issuing demands that the partners cannot fullfil."

In his speech on Thursday at Berlin's Siegess„ule, or "Victory Column," Obama is expected to ratchet up pressure on Washington's NATO allies. In doing so, he also intends to send a signal back to voters in the United States that, in the future, the burden-sharing during war will be greater between partners.

Eckart von Klaeden, the foreign policy speaker for the Christian Democrats' parliamentary group, said one must keep in mind that, during his visit to Berlin, Obama will primarily be addressing American voters. "He may be speaking in front of Germans, but his message is aimed at Americans," von Klaeden told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Obama has already called on America's allies several times to increase their military involvement. "It would raise questions in America if he didn't say anything about Iraq and Afghanistan during his most important speech to be given in Europe," von Klaeden said, "especially right after having visited both countries."

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





23 July, 2008

Eventually, we will all hate Obama too

A British commentator says below that: "What makes America such an indispensable power is precisely what makes anti-Americanism inevitable"

It amuses me that some of those who criticise the present US Administration for its Manichaeism - its division of the world into good and evil - themselves allocate all past badness to Bush and all prospective goodness to Obama. As the ever-improving myth has it, on the morning of September 12, 2001, George W. and America enjoyed the sympathy of the world. This comradeship was destroyed, in a uniquely cavalier (or should we say cowboyish) fashion, through the belligerence, the carelessness, the ideological fixity and the rapacity of that amorphous and useful category of American flawed thinker, the neoconservative. They just threw it away.

But there isn't anything that can't be fixed with a sprinkling of genuine fairy dust. What Bush lost, Obama can find. Where the Texan swaggered, the Chicagoan can glide. Emotional literacy will replace flat iteration, persuasion will supplant force as the preferred means of achieving what needs to be achieved, empathy will trump narcissism. Those who hate America may find their antipathy waning, those who were alarmed by unilateralism will warm to softer, moral leadership. A new dawn will break, will it not?

Some on the Left are getting their count-me-outs in already, realising that Mr Obama is, after all, a big-game hunter, a full-trousered American candidate. They, I think, are more realistic than those who manage on one day to laud the Democrat as not being a real politician, and on the next to praise him for his sensible left-trimming when seeking the party's nomination and his equally sensible centre-hugging once it was in the bag. I say the antis are more realistic because, eventually, we will hate or ridicule Mr Obama too - provided, of course, that he is elected and serves two full terms.

George W.Bush, of course, represents a particular kind of offence to European sensibilities. He blew out Kyoto, instead of pretending to care about it and then not implementing it, which is what our hypocrisies require. He took no exquisite pains to make us feel consulted. He invaded Iraq in the name of freedom and then somehow allowed torturers to photograph each other in the fallen dictator's house of tortures. He is not going to run Franklin Roosevelt a close race for nomination as the second greatest president of the US.

But even if he had been a half-Chinese ballet-loving Francophone, he would have been hated by some who should have loved him, for there isn't an American president since Eisenhower who hasn't ended up, at some point or other, being depicted by the world's cartoonists as a cowboy astride a phallic missile. It happened to Bill Clinton when he bombed Iraq; it will happen to Mr Obama when his reinforced forces in Afghanistan or Pakistan mistake a meeting of tribal elders for an unwise gathering of Taleban and al-Qaeda. Then the new president (or, if McCain, the old president) will be the target of that mandarin Anglo-French conceit that our superior colonialism somehow gives us the standing to critique the Yank's naive and inferior imperialism.

Often those who express their tiresome anti-Americanism will suggest, as do some of the more disingenuous anti-Zionists with regard to anti-Semitism - that they, of course, are not anti-American, and that no one really is. But, coming as I do from an Anti-American tradition that wasn't afraid to proclaim itself, I think I know where the corpses are interred. For example, the current production of Bernstein's Candide at the English National Opera is a classic of elite anti-Americanism, in which we are invited to laugh at the philistine invocation of "Democracy, the American Way and McDonald's". The laughter that accompanied this feeble satire showed our proper understanding that we, the audience, had a proper concept of democracy, and would never soil ourselves with an Egg McMuffin.

The true irony went way above the sniggerers' heads, which was that Leonard Bernstein was the American cultural import that we were, at that very moment, enjoying. But the prejudice is that American culture has had a negative influence on the world, tabloidising our journalism, subverting the gentle land of Ealing with the violent pleasures of Die Hard 10 and commercialising our most intimate lives. And so we have ever complained; my father, back in the early Fifties, once wrote an entire communist pamphlet about the terrible effect of Hollywood and jazz on the land of Shakespeare and Elgar.

This week you could hear the author Andrew O'Hagan on Radio 4, reading from his collection of self-conscious essays, The Atlantic Ocean, in which - despite his own claims - every impact of American life on Britain is somehow configured negatively. He writes of an exported popular culture "born in the suburbs of America" and defined as "Spite as entertainment. Shouting as argument. Dysfunction as normality. Desires as rights. Shopping as democracy." This in the country that has sent Big Brother, Pop Idol, Wife Swap and Location, Location, Location over the Atlantic in the other direction, while taking delivery of Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Wire.

I should admit that I am irked by O'Hagan's dismissal of the "idiots who supported that bad and stupid war (ie, Iraq)" and am willing to match my idiocy against his intelligence in any debating forum that he cares to name. More interesting, though, is the desire to blame America. For all that O'Hagan claims that the US has lost its purchase on the world's affections, it remains the chosen destination for the most ambitious of the planet's migrants. For all that he claims that this change in sentiment is recent, I can't help recalling those - the most honest - who commented, in journals he writes for and on the very day after September 11, that the Americans had had it coming.

In part I think that anti-Americanism is linked to a view of change as decline. The imagination is that dynamic capitalism, associated with the US, is destroying our authentic lives, with our own partly willing connivance. It is a continuing and - at the moment - constant narrative, uniting left and right conservatives, which will usually take in the 19th- century radical journalist William Cobbett (conveniently shorn of his anti-Semitism), and end with an expression of disgust over the Dome, the Olympics or Tesco. Just as bird flu is a disease from out of the East, runaway modernity is a scourge originating to the West.

So Barack Obama, en fete around the world, will one day learn that there is no magical cure for the envy of others. What makes America the indispensable power (and even more indispensable in the era of the new China), is precisely what makes anti-Americanism inevitable.

Source




Obama, he of the ego the size of Chicago.



Here is a guy with less than 200 days in the United States Senate who thinks he is qualified to run for president based on wanting "change" and "hope."  He has tossed folk under the bus so to speak because they tended to make him look bad.  Reverand Wright, Tony Rezko, his "white" grandmother, General Clark, and others.

He requested to speak in front of the Brandenburg gate, which has always been a prerogative of heads of state, he is not.  He had his own presidential seal before the sheer laughter forced him to take it down. 

He has said that he will not condone negative comments about his opponent, then has surrogates do it for him.  He states that his family is off limits then puts his daughters in front of the camera with the oh-so-very lame excuse that it was a spur of the moment thing as if moving all that stuff into his home and the planning that went into it wasn't clearly the work of many man-hours of labor. 

He disallows jokes about him or his wife and blanches at a New Yorker cartoon which was satire and the obamaniacs rioted. Here's one for you...

Q:  Why is Jimmy Carter supporting the candidacy of Obama?
A:  Because Carter is tired of being the Worst President ever!

In short, he is a fake, a fraud and a jackanapes (and since an archaic meaning of the word includes the word ape/monkey - I'm sure some illiterate buffoon who supports him will be calling me a racist.)  Well, if you do, don't be niggardly in your fulminating against me. 

Lastly, he will be the biggest failure as a president since the peanut farmer from Georgia should the American people be stupid enough to elect him. 

Source




When Will The Blackmail Threats Begin?

Obama is already sending not-so-coded messages to the civil rights establishment that his election will not reduce the need, and his support, for continued race preference policies. As Gregory Rodriguez writes today:

A Barack Obama presidency could end the Iraq war, transform our national energy policy, revive America's standing in the world -- but please don't expect the first black man in the Oval Office to move us above and beyond the civil rights era. At least that's what Obama himself suggested last Monday in his speech to the NAACP. In a campaign fueled by high expectations, Obama seemed to be trying to lower his audience's hopes that the election of the first black president would be anything more than a symbolic milestone. "Just electing me president doesn't mean our work is over," he told civil rights activists.

"Work," to "civil rights activists," means protecting and promoting racial preferences. Obama was no doubt reacting to predictions, one of which I discussed recently here, that his success to date portends the "death of affirmative action." In March the Boston Globe reported that

[l]eading opponents of affirmative action are increasingly seizing on Illinois Senator Barack Obama's historic run for the presidency as proof that race-based remedies for past discrimination are no longer necessary.

Rodriguez, too, reminds us that this reading of the meaning of Obama's success has been put forward by a number of opponents of race preferences.

All of this is particularly interesting given the enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy in some conservative quarters. Anti-affirmative-action activists Ward Connerly and Abigail Thernstrom, for instance, are seeing greater historical significance in an Obama victory than many Obama supporters themselves. To them, large numbers of white voters willing to vote for a black man signals a welcome sea change in whites' attitudes toward blacks. And to them, that means that what they've been saying all along is right: Race-based policies designed to redress inequality and past discrimination have outlived their usefulness. That's an idea many Democrats are loath to accept.

But what if Obama loses? It hasn't been that long since the Sharptons were hinting, and many pundits were predicting, riots in the streets of Denver if Obama were deprived of the nomination. Will there be similar blackmail threats about what will happen if Obama loses the election?

This is supposed to be the year when even the Democrats can't lose a presidential election. If Obama does lose, will there be a single "civil rights activist" who will doubt that his loss must be attributed to continuing, pervasive white racism?

Source




Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama

By SHELBY STEELE

The senator offers blacks an end to perceptions of inferiority, and whites an end to guilt

A few weeks ago, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made something of a fool of himself. There he was -- a historical figure in his own right -- threatening the castration of Barack Obama. It was sad to see. If I have often criticized Mr. Jackson, I have also, reservedly, admired him. He is a late 20th century outcropping of a profoundly American archetype: the self-invented man who comes from nothing and, out of sheer force of personality, imposes himself on the American consciousness. If he never reached the greatness to which he aspired, he nevertheless did honor to the enduring American tradition of bold and unapologetic opportunism.

But now -- not looking old so much as a bit lost within the new Obama aura -- it is clear that Jesse Jackson has come to a kind of d‚nouement. Some force that once buoyed him up now seems spent. Mr. Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.

Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity. They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.

Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them. So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.

And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.

And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled. Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly. Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.

Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?

I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.

But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.

So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.) It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift. This, no doubt, is what Barack Obama means by "change." He promises to reconfigure our exhausted cultural arrangement.

But here lies his essential contradiction: His campaign is more cultural than political. He sells himself more as a cultural breakthrough than as a candidate for office. To be a projection screen for the cultural aspirations of both blacks and whites one must be an invisible man politically. Real world politics, in their mundanity, interrupt cultural projections. And so Mr. Obama's political invisibility -- a charm that can only derive from a lack of deep political convictions -- may well serve his cultural appeal, but it also makes him something of a political mess.

Already he has flip-flopped on campaign financing, wire-tapping, gun control, faith-based initiatives, and the terms of withdrawal from Iraq. Those enamored of his cultural potential may say these reversals are an indication of thoughtfulness, or even open-mindedness. But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is pass‚, a form of bad taste.

John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.

Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas. He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.

Source




Obama's Disastrous Interview About Hunting Osama bin Laden

Is anyone paying attention to what Obama is saying? In his interview with CBS News, Obama says:

Logan: Because you do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they're still there. And they're inside Pakistan.

Obama: Right. It's a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves.

Several times in recent interviews, Obama has referred to "taken our eye off the ball" in terms of the invasion of Iraq, which began in March of 2003. We don't know precisely when Osama bin Laden entered Pakistan, but it is generally believed that he escaped Tora Bora and crossed the border sometime in late November or the beginning of December 2001. Somehow the U.S. took its collective eyes off the ball to prevent an event that occurred in December 2001 by sending troops to another country starting in March 2002 for an invasion that began in 2003.

It's not as if the geopolitical challenges of sending U.S. troops into Pakistan suddenly appeared in March 2003. Once Osama crossed the border, the potential cost of pursuing him -i.e., a civil war in a country with nuclear weapons - became higher and the consequences became riskier.

Also note that CBS' Lara Logan forces Obama to concede that his oft-touted call to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistani territory is actually current U.S. policy.

Logan: Isn't that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if the U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said no, that they wouldn't fire or wouldn't go after him?

Obama: I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that. But I don't think there's any doubt that that should be our policy, and will continue to be our policy.

Logan: But it is the current policy.

Obama: I believe it is the current policy.

Logan: So there's no change then.

Obama: I don't think there is going to be a change there.

And that Obama and Logan get stuck in a merry-go-round of "I'll get the Pakistanis to destroy the training camps"/"What if they won't?"

Obama: I think that in order for us to be successful, it's not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We've got training camps that are growing and multiplying.

Logan: Would you take out all those training camps?

Obama: Well, I think that what we'd like to see is the Pakistani government take out those training camps.

Logan: And if they won't?

Obama: Well, I think that we've got to work with them so they will.

Logan: But would you consider unilateral U.S. action?

Obama: You know, I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it's absolutely vital to the security interests of both the United States and Pakistan.

Again, it's not that it's never dawned on Musharraff or the Pakistani government that cracking down on al-Qaeda and Taliban training camps is a good idea. It's that they fear the entire region would turn against the Pakistani government, with additional questions of loyalty of the ISI.

Source




The bias gets even more blatant

The Drudge Report and Fox News are reporting today that the New York Times has denied an opinion piece from Senator John McCain after publishing Senator Barack Obama's op-ed last week. The Drudge link provides the background and full text of the op-ed article which The New York Times turned down.

This comes as no surprise to media monitors who predicted that the liberal media would provide cover for Obama during his fact-finding tour of Iraq. It is clear that The New York Times does not want to allow McCain to take a swing at the Democratic nominee while he is vulnerable. His high profile tour gives McCain the perfect opportunity to put a punctuation mark next to the erroneous judgment of Barack Obama who called the surge a failure up until a few days ago.

One year and two weeks ago The New York Times declared the Iraq War lost and demanded troops be withdrawn immediately. Just days ago it stated that it cannot define what a victory is so we can not have victory in Iraq:

And it was distressing to hear Mr. McCain still talking about "winning" the war in Iraq and adopting the tedious tactic of accusing Mr. Obama of "giving up" when he talks about a careful withdrawal of troops. We have no idea what winning means to Mr. McCain.

Fringe leftist liberals have long used this argument. They say there is no definition for victory in Iraq, thus we can not have victory, and therefore we cannot win. It doesn't matter how many times the Bush Administration or John McCain defines victory -- usually along the lines of a secure, democratic Iraqi that is a partner against terrorism -- fringe leftists can't hear it. This "nah, nah, nah, nah....we can't hear you" game is a tiresome one coming from leftist activists. Coming from a standard of American media, it is distressing. How low can they sink?

This low. According to the new reporting, The New York Times responded to the McCain campaign with:

Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

So the Times can't find a definition from John McCain on what victory in Iraq means? Maybe they should just look at McCain's website:

The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.

Of course playing the "nah, nana, nah, nah...we can't hear you" game does a lot more to protect Obama doesn't it?

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





22 July, 2008

Not Everyone in Europe is Crazy in Love with Obama

Via the excellent site Watching America comes an editorial in Financial Times Deutschland that asks some pertinent questions of their countrymen who are about to turn out in droves to see the messiah:

However, this question must be asked: how much political savvy do those who celebrate Obama, a man who hasn't yet had to accept any great responsibilities, really have? Obama is often praised for rekindling enthusiasm in democracy in people due to his drawing power. But mass obeisance to a charismatic leader really has little to do with democracy. On the contrary, the sociologist Max Weber describes charismatic domination as a condition that gains no legitimacy either through elections or tradition. The Obama-hype is similar to the month-long dance around the iPhone, except that the Apple cell phone will still have to submit to field trials.

One of Obama's central messages is his distance from The Establishment, from the usual political scheming, from the deals of the political class. This promise, one that is naturally impossible to separate from every-day presidential life, also falls on open ears in Europe. Surveys regularly show that people are tired of political squabbling and the cumbersome search for compromise. A presidential anti-politician like Horst K”hler draws his popularity from the fact that he can call for or reject reforms without responsibility for day-to-day politics.

That "cumbersome search for compromise" is the only thing standing between us and dictatorship. It is the lifeblood of democracy. But those under a certain age are impatient with all this talking and naively yearn for a society without political conflict and where everyone gets along (and they all lived happily ever after...)

It shows, I believe, that at a fundamental level we have failed to pass on many democratic values such as compromise, tolerance, minority rights, and civility. Part of that blame should certainly go to the schools who today, mired in new leftist group-think about not how to learn but how to brainwash the young into becoming good little global citizens, are actually distrustful of democracy. But more blame should fall to parents who for what ever reason, did not inculcate the values of our system into their children's education at home.

Obama is the perfect post-democracy candidate. He promises nothing specific while leaving open the possibility that he can bring peace and justice to the galaxy like a Jedi knight. With a wave of his hand, he will stop all that confounded talk in Congress and get things done.

The German people of 1933 also were tired of bickering politicians and yearned for a strong leader who would make "the will of the people" into law. Watch Obama when he speaks in front of tens of thousands of Germans this week and remind yourself how that square was full of Germans 75 years ago basically wishing for the same thing those youngsters will be seeing in Obama.

Source




Is Obama A Muslim?

The rather clever post below is recycled from Discriminations. See the original for links. I am rather surprised, though, by his failure to mention Obama's declared liking for the shahada (Muslim declaration of faith): "Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."". See also here

One of the reasons the New Yorker cover showing fist-bumping Obamas in Muslim garb caused such a ruckus is that its appearance coincided with the release of a Pew Research Center report showing that 12% of Americans (interestingly, 12% of both Democrats and Republicans) still believe Obama is in fact a Muslim. As Eleanor Clift laments, typically, in Newsweek,

A survey released this week conducted by the Pew Research Center finds the notion Obama is a Muslim "bipartisan and enduring." Equal percentages of Republicans and Democrats (12 percent in each party), believe he is a Muslim, with Democrats who hold the belief significantly less likely to vote for Obama.

Jonathan Alter, also in Newsweek, also laments that "the New Yorker cover, now being displayed endlessly on cable TV, speaks louder than any efforts by Obama supporters to stop the smears," and then he indulges in a little smearing, or at least exposing, himself:

For a while, I thought only rightwingers and other Obama haters bought into the lies being spread about him. Then I got a call from Ross Perot, who was trying to plant some dirt about John McCain leaving live POWs behind in Vietnam (untrue, by the way). In the course of the conversation, it became clear that Perot thought Obama was a Muslim. When I informed him that Obama was actually a Christian, Perot was relieved.... In this, alas, Ross Perot has plenty of company, and among people with a much less conspiratorial bent....

Given Obama's prominent association with Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ and his extended discussions of his journey of religious discovery in his two autobiographies (does anyone else get the idea that Obama is Obama's favorite subject?), not to mention the passions that are aroused by even the mildest questioning of Obama's religious identity, it is probably a mistake to suggest that there is any reasonable basis whatsover for any informed person to suggest that there may be at least one sense in which Obama is a Muslim.

Since I don't need the wrath such a suggestion would invite, I don't intend to suggest it. But it does seem worth pointing out (more in the nature of a reminder than an original observation, since others have made this point) that, in addition to the 12% of dumb, misinformed, probably bitter Americans, millions of people around the world are firmly convinced that Obama is a Muslim. Why do they think so? Because a strong, perhaps dominant, interpretation of Muslim Sharia law tells them so.

As the well-known military and foreign affairs analyst Edward Luttwak wrote in a New York Times OpEd just two months ago, but well before the New Yorker implosion,

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's family may choose to forgive).

An identical argument was made about the same time by Shireen K. Burki in a Christian Science Monitor OpEd:

Osama bin Laden must be chuckling in his safe house. After all, the 2008 campaign could very well give Al Qaeda the ultimate propaganda tool: President Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim apostate.

The fact that Senator Obama - the son of a Muslim father - insists he was never a Muslim before becoming Christian is irrelevant to bin Laden. In bin Laden's eyes, Obama is a murtad fitri, the worst type of apostate, because he was blessed by Allah to be born into the true faith of Islam....

Acording to Islamic jurisprudence, children of a Muslim father - even an apparently nonpracticing one, such as Obama's father, and irrespective of the mother's faith - are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period.

Now, everyone who is in favor of arrogant, isolationist America deferring to world opinion on all important matters, just as you did here, please stand up.

Fortunately, the United States is not governed by Sharia law. Individuals, even candidates for president, are free to choose their own religion, and their choices deserve a certain measure of respect - though not absolute respect, lest we be inhibited from offering the robust criticism that Rev. Wright, Minister Farrakhan, and those who follow them so richly deserve. So, is there any sense in which Obama is a Muslim? I suppose the answer depends, at least in part, on what the meaning of "is" is.




Let Me Count the Ways

I rather deplore the misuse below of the best poem ever written by a woman but the points made are apt

"How do I love thee, Barack Obama?" his media maids and man-servants coo: "Let me count the ways."

1. In your toasted anti-Iraq speech of 2002, you proclaimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - but has any of us reminded you of that?

2. In declaring Saddam armed but not dangerous, have we asked you how that could be?

3. You preach that "Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us" - but did we probe into how Ahmadinejad unarmed was a threat while Saddam armed was not?

4. When Bill Clinton stated that Saddam "presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere," did we ask what you knew that he didn't?

5. When Hillary Clinton stated that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members," did we inquire how he was therefore not a threat?

6. When you proclaimed that "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors," did we point out that Israel was among those neighbors and that Saddam was paying $25,000 to suicide-bombers families so their sons would kill Jews?

7. Did we ask how Saddam was no threat to the US when he was firing on American pilots?

8. When you said "What I am opposed to is a rash war," did we inquire how it was "rash" to act more than four years after Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act declaring that "it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq"?

9. When you waxed about Saddam "that in concert with the international community he can be contained," did we ask how that could be when that same community bribed and conspired and kicked-back to keep Saddam in power and strip all sanctions?

10. When you perorated that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences," did we ask if that wasn't also true of any new venture - or did Edison, Bell, Carrier, Ford, and Harley and Davidson know exact times, costs, and consequences before they began?

11. When you articulated that war in Iraq "will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world," have we asked why then Arab nations are sending ambassadors back to Iraq and forgiving Saddam-era debt?

12. When you contended that Iraq would "strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda," have we pointed out that Al Qaeda is being destroyed in Iraq and will be in Afghanistan now that US troops have built a solid ally in Iraq?

13. When you argued "Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work," have we asked how they could when inspectors testified that Iraqis repeatedly lied and that none of Iraq's Full, Final, and Complete Declarations to the UN was ever full, final, or complete?

Ah, but then love does indeed blind, and so media maids and man-servants would never ask:

1. What Obama would do with a Saddam long freed from sanctions and by now chemically, biologically, and nuclear rearmed as he had long ago pledged?

2. How dramatically he would have rebuilt his military flush with $140-a-barrel cash?

3. Or would oil be even higher with Saddam reigning, Uday and Qusay squabbling to succeed, and Ahmadinejad racing to have nuclear weapons first?

4. How many more Kurds and Shias, along with troublesome Sunnis, now would be dead?

5. With Afghanistan alone attacked, would Osama Bin Laden have accepted Saddam's safe haven offer and allied his forces with Saddam now free from sanctions?

6. Would Israel survive or would Saddam unleash WMD, solve the Palestinian problem, and rally Arabs behind the new Nebuchadnezzar, emperor of the Middle East?

7. How brisk would Saddam's arms export business be - especially to counter nuclear-armed Libya and still hustling A.Q. Kahn?

Countless indeed are the ways the press loves Barack, and why not? Saddam was no threat. And neither is Obama.

Source




Media Messing Itself in Describing Obama's Trip

I have been following politics for my entire adult life and before - more than 40 years - and I thought I had seen it all. I've seen triumph and tragedy. Low comedy and high drama. The lowest skunks and the highest examples of selflessness and political courage. But I have never seen anything like the way the media is slavering over Barack Obama's overseas trip. This from Newsbusters is nauseating:

ABC, CBS and CNN showcased video of Obama making a basketball shot at a gym with troops in Kuwait. Over video troops cheering Obama as he walked into the gym, on ABC's World News Jim Sciutto touted: "Though the destinations were new, the greeting was familiar. Senator Barack Obama signing autographs with soldiers on his first stop in Kuwait, even taking time to play some basketball..." Forrest Sawyer, anchoring the CBS Evening News on Saturday night, apparently with a new job after many years with ABC and MSNBC, highlighted how Obama "sank a shot from way outside the paint." Sawyer announced over matching video:

Now, before Afghanistan Senator Obama stopped off in Kuwait to talk to the troops there. You remember all that grief Obama got for being a terrible bowler? Well, at a local gym someone handed him a basketball and he promptly sank a shot from way outside the paint. He made it look easy. You just have to pick the game.

At the start of a special half-hour CNN Newsroom at 11:30 PM EDT Saturday night, July 19, Rick Sanchez trumpeted:

Tonight you're going to be seeing the very first pictures of presidential candidate Barack Obama overseas with U.S. troops. Those are stills that you're looking at behind me that we've beeen getting from this trip by this junior U.S. Senator, a trip that seems to be captivating the rest of the world as much, if not more so, than many in the United States...

Let me give you a quick set up on this next piece of video. Senator Obama goes into the gym afterward and shoots a free-throw. Then he mingles with some of the soldiers. One female soldier, in particular, challenges him to try and do it again. Now, watch this as it plays out.

The Third Reich didn't have such willing syncophants. They are trying to outdo each other in glowing coverage. It's almost as if the guy is a god, so reverently they are describing his every move.

I have been wracking my brains trying to come up with an analogy between the way the media is covering Obama on this trip and the way they may have covered another politician. So far, I have been unsuccessful.

I was a little young for JFK's campaign but reading contemporary coverage of him later, you would be struck by how harshly some reporters treated him. It wasn't until after he was in the White House that the press went in the tank for him. Even then, there were many important voices in the media who went against the grain and criticized him.

But this over the top, shameless hustling for Obama by major media is jaw dropping. I guess we better get used to it because if they have their way, Obama will return a conquering hero from this trip and never look back until he's safely in the White House.

Source




Obama's decline

Obama's breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain's. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama's shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.

As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more na‹ve supporters. One wag even called him the "black Bill Clinton," a turnaround of the "first black president" moniker that had been pinned on Bill.

Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue -- oil drilling -- exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we "cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices" begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.

The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don't see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.

Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of "gradual adjustment" to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.

Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for ordinary people to afford the journey to work in the morning. And, with a 16-state media buy, the Republican Party and the McCain campaign are doing precisely that.

If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters. Where would they go? Nader is still a possibility. But McCain can attract liberal votes. He doesn't need to bleed Obama only from the right. His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left. If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama's obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle.

The race is tied because of the decline in support for Obama, not because of increased support for McCain. McCain and Obama have been able to drive up Obama's negatives, but there is still no surge for McCain. I think this is the way this race is going to go. It is still Obama's race to lose and he is just the guy to lose it. He is also helped in that task by his party and their ridiuclous anti energy policy. The Democrat energy policy can be summed up as conservation and hope for a miracle. It is that policy that has gotten where we are today. McCain is an imperfect messenger in fighting that policy, but he is all we have.

The Demcorats are dead wrong on energy and on the war in Iraq. They are also dead wrong on taxes. A good offense should expose these bad Democrat policies and defeat them. The Republican problem appears to be a lack of leadership on bringing this message to the voters.

Source




Obama as a false prophet

It's interesting to think about Barack Obama's trip to South Asia and the Middle East after watching Philip Tetlock's wonderful January 2007 video on the efficacy of forecasting. Tetlock asked himself why pundits never lost their reputations by making bad predictions. Jonathan Schell, in his famous book the Fate of the Earth predicted Ronald Reagan's policies would increase the probability of a nuclear war. At that time most analysts in the CIA were predicting that the Soviet Union would last forever. Neither came true. Yet Johnathan Schell is still selling books and one of the analysts who felt confident the USSR would last a long time is now Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. Tetlock came to the conclusion that political punditry was so unaccountable because no one was keeping score.

So to find out its real value he began to compile a sample of 28,000 predictions by 284 experts over 18 years to see which of them came true. The results were disappointing. Expert predictions barely outperformed simple statistical prediction schemes such as those which assumed no change or that the latest rate of change would continue. In other words experts could not predict the future with any clarity but we consulted them anyway because of the need to appear in control of even future events. Indeed in Tetlock's early 2007 video illustrates the weaknesses of expert prediction perfectly; with its references to "regional experts" who were very confident that the Surge would fail. Maybe it will, if we wait long enough. But one type of expert was clearly worse than others; the kind he termed the "hedgehog". They made the least accurate predictions of all. "Hedgehog" in this context denotes someone who bets on extreme outcomes based on a theoretical construct, such an ideological position. The term is taken from a poem by the ancient Greek Archilocus who wrote "the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing". Hedgehogs are those who "just know" what is going to happen with the certainty of a true believer. They are guided by the "big thing".

It was better Tetlock found, for predictors to be consciously aware of the unkown; to be informed not only by knowledge but anti-knowledge - what we don't know. The experts who did that, who were open to the idea that the world was messy, full random and complex influences - he called the "foxes". Normally they were more boring than the hedgehogs. Hedgehogs tended to categorically tell people what was going to happen or not happen, while foxes were often only willing to offer probabilities and forecast over short horizons. Tetlock argued that while the foxes predicted things better, the public was much more willing to listen to the hedgehogs, especially when they could tell a good story.

Even more entertaining than Tetlock is the video lecture by Nasim Nicholas Taleb, the author of the Black Swan. Taleb's attitude toward life was changed by his discovery of how little he could predict and set about discovering the bounds of knowledge and anti-knowledge. Taleb in his lecture describes his now famous view that events in the world can be categorized into the categories of mediocristan and extremistan. Mediocristan is populated by events in which individual outcomes do not change the aggregate result by much. In this category phenomena can be easily mathematized and classic statistical predictions rule. Some domains of physics are like this.

But the other place - which by far encompasses most of the things that affect us - is dominated by a class of events that is not so easily mathematized. He calls this Extremistan. Here the rare, high impact event rules and individual events can have disproportionate effects on final outcomes. His example is the Black Swan. For most of human history all swans were believed to be white because all were observed to be white. But when Captain Cook arrived in Australia the first Black Swan they encountered was enough to invalidate a multitude of prior observations. We went from a world in which all swans were white to one in which they might be of a different color by a single observation.

It is not surprising that Taleb and Tetlock are friends. In common their work has highlighted the importance of what we don't know. Taleb's Black Swan idea partially explains why Tetlock's "foxes" do better than is "hedgehogs". "Foxes" understand that they don't know the answers and are open to the existence of Black Swans and consequently they incorporate information which a "hedgehog" might throw away. Since hedgehogs already understand the future they are less likely to see what doesn't fit and are consequently much more likely to be caught off guard by unexpected developments.

It is tempting to characterize Obama's approach to international relations as one resembling that of Tetlock's "hedgehog". Although he is going to Afghanistan and the Middle East ostensibly to examine the conditions on the ground, it is not for the purpose of reworking his policies. He already knows what those are. They are given. Rather, he is there to discover what obstacles might obstruct their implementation. Obama already knows what he is going to do. It is this clarity of vision that makes him so attractive to his supporters. But it is also the source of the greatest danger to his policies. What happens if Obama says, "Yes we can" and reality says, "No you can't"? What happens if the hedgehog meets the Black Swan?

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





21 July, 2008

Mr. Obama, Meet Mr. Jihadi

Barack Obama says regarding his thoughts after 9/11:

"The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

and that my friends is what you get with a Harvard education. It is sort of like the famous scene from Indiana Jones in reverse. You may remember that Jones is confronted by a sword wielding powerful warrior (Afghan-type clothes) who swings his sword at him showing off his great skill. Jones pulls out his gun and shoots the guy once. This brought a big laugh when I saw the film in a theatre. This is called: Western technology wins.

Now here's my version. Jones, the epitome of modern sophisticated man in his expensive clothes and superior education, confronts the man with a brilliant series of arguments as to why it is in the warrior's interest to focus instead on raising his living standards, make peace, and get his own state. The warrior pulls out a small knife and cuts off Jones's head. Jones's colleagues then say that Jones had it coming due to his past sins, that we must understand the suffering that led to this violence, this shows the need for more negotiations and concessions, etc. This is called: asymmetric warfare.

While Obama poses as the great cosmopolitan there is something very much in common between his statement on the September 11 terrorists and what he has to say on the rural and small town Americans, who he believes are attracted to their views only through low living standards, ignorance, and the follies of religion. No one can think in a manner different from him. No one can hold another belief system and act on it. They are merely evincing, to use the Marxist term for it, false consciousness. He will educate them both directly by material goods and by proper information.

Ironically, this is the epitome of imperialist thinking and it is also intolerant and demeaning in the way that historic racism was. To run a country you must understand that other people have their own set of beliefs and interests; that they think differently from you; that you just cannot buy them off; that their behavior is not just a result of your mistakes in the past but of their own history and culture (which determines even how they react to your own behavior). Not to mention the fact that the September 11 hijackers mostly came from wealthy families and the wealthiest of them all was Usama bin Ladin.

He might have grown up partly in Indonesia, he may have lived as a Muslim until age 10, but Obama's mentality is extraordinarily unsuited to understand the Third World, Middle East (or other dictatorships), terrorists (and their far more numerous supporters), or even the American people as a whole.

Perhaps Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran put it best, if I might paraphrase him: Anyone who thinks we staged a revolution because of the price of watermelons is a fool.

Source




Compare and contrast



Compare this:

Barack Obama's advisers insist his coming trip abroad is not a campaign swing. Even so, the high-profile journey has all the trappings of a rock-star tour.

The Illinois senator's trip to Europe and the Middle East has generated so much interest that all three TV network news anchors are planning to accompany the candidate. Foreign media have reported daily on the impending visit. And the campaign revealed Friday that Obama intends to meet with top U.S. allies.

Obama is surely looking to burnish his foreign policy credentials overseas - but on the back end of it, his superstar persona might get the biggest boost. "What you're about to see is enormous publicity," Democratic strategist Susan Estrich said. "He's got three anchors coming with him. He's got the glitterati of the press corps."

With this:

"Good Morning America" on Wednesday attempted to guilt trip John McCain for taking a foreign trip while "Americans wrestle with a tough economy." Five times over the course of two segments, various GMA hosts, reporters and analysts insinuated that McCain's trip to Colombia and Mexico might result in voters thinking he doesn't care about the economic situation of Americans. Correspondent Bianna Golodryga pointedly wondered, "But at a time when polls show Obama ahead of McCain by 16 points on the economy, should McCain be staying closer to home?" GMA co-host Robin Roberts, in an interview with Senator McCain, questioned, "So, why is Senator McCain abroad when Americans are focused on the economy here at home and losing jobs, more and more jobs, as Bianna just reported?"

It must mean that the economy is turning around... in a matter of what... oh... less than 20 days. Itsamiracul. Or it's out the wazoo media bias. You be the judge.

Source




Another day, another dumping

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama rolls Medal of Honor recipient Max Cleland under the bus. Wheelchair and all. Obama had invited Democrat Cleland, a former senator from Georgia and a disabled Vietnam veteran, to join him in a fundraiser in Atlanta on July 8. He uninvited him because Cleland is an evil, money-grubbing, influence-peddling lobbyist.

Who does he lobby for? "Cleland is registered to lobby for a company whose products are aimed at helping soldiers recover more quickly from battlefield industries injuries, Tissue Regeneration Technologies," reported Ben Smith at Politico. Hey, Obama, here's a quarter. Buy yourself some class.

Cleland voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002, so I'm guessing Obama's antiwar supporters are smiling.

Source




Bob Barr is Helping Barack Obama

Former Republican Bob Barr is the Libertarian nominee for President. He had a column yesterday in the Wall Street Journal titled "Judges Are No Reason to Vote for McCain". I wish I had time to list all of the fallacies in Barr's column.

Let's start with this one: "Mr. McCain has endorsed, in action if not rhetoric, the theory of the 'unitary executive,' which leaves the president unconstrained by Congress or the courts." But, the "unitary executive" concept involves who in the executive branch wields power --- not how much power the executive branch has, as both Jonathan Adler and Ilya Somin have pointed out in response to Barr's column.

Barr also suggests that McCain does not mind the judicial philosophies of Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominees: "He has never paid much attention to judicial philosophy, backing both Clinton Supreme Court nominees - Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Again, Barr does not know what he is talking about. Ann Althouse properly criticized the Obama campaign for the same kind of accusation against McCain (and so did I). Althouse correctly said:

The role of the President and the role of a Senator are very different when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. The President's nomination identifies one person from the pool of possible nominees and therefore has a tremendous amount of latitude in searching for someone who he thinks will decide cases to his liking, who shares his ideology.

Barr bounces from one outrageous statement to another, in his WSJ column. Consider this one:

[M]any Republicans, like Mr. McCain, are just as result-oriented as their Democratic opponents. They only disagree over the result desired. Judge-made rights are wrong because there is no constitutional warrant behind them. The Constitution leaves most decisions up to the normal political process.

In actuality, Barr seems to be describing himself rather than describing McCain. You wouldn't know it from his disingenuous column today in the Wall Street Journal, but Barr is a wholehearted supporter of the theory of an imperial judiciary that can legalize any activity that it wants as long as the activity occurs in private. Take, for example, the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. That decision purported to legalize sodomy, and Barr wholeheartedly supported that decision. The Court's reasoning in that case was no different than in other judicial travesties such as Dred Scott and Lochner. The result in Lawrence - viewed as judicial legislation - was far more reasonable and compassionate than that of either Dred Scott or Lochner, but the legal reasoning was the same utter, dangerous nonsense. And yet Barr said: "I thought it was a very sound decision based on privacy." By the exact same legal reasoning, the Court could concoct a right to adult incest, Russian roulette, and heroin, not to mention abortion, spousal abuse, and dog fighting. The list is endless. But, of course, this isn't about legal reasoning at all: it's about legislating from the bench.

Source




Europe Has an Economics Lesson for Obama

Democratic activists and European intellectuals are ecstatic about Barack Obama's trip to Europe. Europeans see a man they hope will win the presidency (a recent poll found 72% of Germans backing Sen. Obama). U.S. Democratic activists see their nominee gaining the experience of a continent whose policies -- more pacifist, statist and secular than America's -- they would prefer to emulate. Both sets of people hope Mr. Obama will be influenced by what he sees and emerge a man whose message of change will be informed by stereotypical European aspirations and experiences.

But the Europe Mr. Obama will visit is quite different from the one Americans often hear about. Over the last decade, much of Europe has very quietly embraced market-based reforms that either draw inspiration from American successes or -- on issues like retirement security -- are even more market-oriented than many U.S. Republicans support.

What's more, these changes have been adopted and implemented by parties left and right. This Europe is a shining example of exactly the sort of postpartisan government action that the Obama campaign says it is about.

The cutting of corporate income- tax rates is an excellent example of European market-friendly bipartisanship. Germany's right-left coalition of Christian and Social Democrats implemented a large rate cut earlier this year, reducing the top marginal corporate rate to about 30% from 39%. Spain's Socialist and Britain's Labor governments have followed suit, reducing their countries' top corporate rates.

These traditionally left-of-center parties understand that in a globalized economy, wealth and investment are mobile, flowing to those countries that provide hospitable investment climates. As part of a European Union where center-right governments in Greece, Denmark, Ireland and Eastern Europe have dramatically reduced corporate tax rates, they understand that they cannot help workers if they drive away the capital that employs and pays them.

Many European countries are also ahead of America when it comes to pension reform. Mr. Obama's main solution to the looming Social Security bankruptcy is to raise taxes on the well-off. To date, he has eschewed other solutions such as raising the retirement age or creating private Social Security accounts. But European center-left parties have no such reservations.

Take Sweden, for example. In the 1990s, a series of center-right and Social Democratic governments reached agreement on wide ranging pension reforms that include a private account option not too different than the one proposed by President George W. Bush. Under the Swedish plan, workers can put aside up to 2.5% of their salary into one or more of nearly 800 competing private-sector accounts. Swedish workers own these accounts and direct their investment options, earning the rewards if their investment choices increase faster than do average wages. Both political coalitions now support the basic contour of this approach, and retirement policy was not a contentious issue in Sweden's 2006 elections.

Sweden is not the only European example of market-friendly, bipartisan entitlement reform. In the 1990s, Holland had one of the most generous disability insurance systems in the world. At its height, about one in 10 Dutch working-age adults were drawing government disability checks rather than working. Recognizing this was unsustainable, Christian Democrats, Liberals and Social Democrats came together to cut benefits and tighten eligibility criteria. The intent was to cut the disability rolls and push people back into the workforce, much like America's 1996 welfare-reform law. The effect has been dramatic: Disability rolls have dropped by almost 20% since 2002.

This new European consensus is founded, like all political calculations, partly on conviction and partly on necessity. European center-left politicians have slowly come to respect the power of markets. Much like the so-called "Rubin Democrats," they recognize that the energy and innovation of market actors can better produce wealth than more traditional social democratic economic theory.

They have also come to the recognition that the task of center-left governments is to minimize the negative externalities of market action while using government to more equitably distribute the resulting economic gains. These progressives believe in reforming and guiding, not restricting or reviling, the private sector.

European center-left approval of market reforms is also rooted in economic and political necessity. Even social democratic countries benefit from a global economy and hence must compete in it. Experience has proven that center-left parties obtain and keep power if they emphasize the center rather than the left. They have found that their electorates want redistribution of a growing economic pie.

Again, Sweden is an excellent example of this. Since 1932, Social Democrats have governed the country mostly without significant coalition partners, with the exception of the years when Sweden's economy stalled and they had to cede power -- 1976-82, 1991-94 and again in 2006 when the current center-right government took over. Even in egalitarian Sweden, voters will turn to the right if jobs are scarce and incomes stagnant.

Mr. Obama's postpartisan, "let us all come together" message is perhaps the most important reason for his meteoric rise. Many conservatives and Republicans fear this rhetoric is divorced from reality and that an Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress would soon drop the mantle of unity and press for a purely liberal agenda. By adopting the modern European model, a President Obama would go a long away toward alleviating those fears and fulfilling his promise.

Source




No free ride for Europe, says top Barack Obama aide

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph on the eve of Mr Obama's week-long trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe, Susan Rice emphasised that the election of Mr Obama would mark a decision by Americans to "turn the page" on President George W Bush. But the former Rhodes Scholar, who took her Master's degree and doctorate in international relations at New College, Oxford, made clear that an Obama administration would also challenge Europe to do more after a Democratic victory in November's election. "It would signal a return to the more pragmatic and bi-partisan traditions of American foreign policy, which have been lost to ideology in the Bush years," she said. "He will not proceed through an ideological frame and seek to impose that frame on every challenge.

"There is some truth to the notion that some of the animus at the popular level towards the Bush administration may have made it easier for some of our European partners to avoid taking steps that we may want them to take and that perhaps they ought to take," she said. "That has, in some respects, perhaps on some issues, given them an easy out. Barack Obama will lead from a position of strength and seek progress, and he will want to work with Europe in very strong partnership. "It means we in the United States will have to do our part; but Europe will have to do its part too. There can be no free riders if this is going to be an effective partnership."

The Obama campaign has highlighted Afghanistan as a prime example, arguing that Europe should send more troops there and lift restrictions on how they can be used. On Tuesday, Mr Obama argued for a major sift in American policy away from the "single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq" towards a broader approach to the world and vowed to send more troops to Afghanistan. "Among the issues we will want to focus on together are a strong and effective approach to Iran and to the larger non-proliferation challenge, a robust effort to tackle climate change, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the situation is deteriorating and where we in the US as well as Nato need to do more," said Miss Rice. She added: "And so Obama will ask more of ourselves and ask more of our closest allies."

Mr Obama is committed to withdrawing American troops from Iraq at a rate of one to two brigades a month. "Obama will maintain a residual US presence, but not permanent bases, to carry out specific missions. She described these as "protecting our embassy, civilians and humanitarian workers; conducting counter-terrorism operations against remaining al-Qaeda elements; and continuing to train Iraqi police and security forces, if the Iraqis are making progress towards political reconciliation".

One of Mr Obama's toughest tasks would be to rebuild American relations with the world, she conceded. "What happened in the Bush years, particularly in the early Bush years, was a precipitous drop off in European attitudes towards the United States and towards President Bush in particular. "The polls for a number of years indicated that the frustration or the disillusion was directed primarily at President Bush. But over time, the United States and Bush came to be conflated in international popular opinion, not entirely but increasingly ... it doesn't serve American interests, and it needs to be repaired."

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





20 July, 2008

Suspected illegal donations: Obama, who is Jeanne McCurdy?

A small note: The John Jay (an historic name!) mentioned below is NOT jonjayray -- much as I would like to be of assistance to the feisty Pamela Geller

John Jay has been assisting me in analyzing small foreign contributions to Obama's campaign that Atlas reader Laura sent me. It appears to be, after cross checking FEC documents, a list of the Obama For America Contributors.

On its face, the list (under 500 pages) is suspect. So many foreign addresses giving money to the Presidential campaign. There are numerous individuals who are "bundling" contributions, some are smaller from the same person on same day, not to mention lots "unemployed or student". Further, there's a ton of foreign service and State Department admissions.

lots and lots of multiple entries.

lots of foreign service, diplomat entries.

lots of military analyst types.

lots way over any $200 non-reporting caps.

Other overseas contributors are making multiple small donations ostensibly in their own names over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. So while some of the contributions appear legal, others appear clearly over the maximums allowed without greater reporting requirement. Some of the contributions may be legal as reported, but "fishy" can only describe the Obama campaign reporting with regard to aggregate contributions. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississiauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi's stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc, but nare ot limited to these countries, as we've have just begun to read through almost 500 pages.

There are way too many overseas contributions and I find it hard to believe they are all American citizens. How does the FEC monitor that? Some of contributions appear to be "bundled" from one person as source to hide the contributions of many, and an example of one among many such "incidents" will clearly show why I arrive at such a conclusion..

A red flag is a donor like Jeanne McCurdy. Look at the contribution excerpt below. It's a compilation of a mere four pages of listings, pages 40-44, approximately 9% of the pages of the total document I received, and it lists contributions made by a Jeanne McCurdy, who is always listed as unemployed, and who does not have an address at least as can be found in the files provided (and, as you might well expect, no phone number or email address either).

John did a computation of her contributions from roughly Aug. 07 through Feb/Mar of 08, and it is over $1200. She ranges from a $15 to a $400 contribution, most running $25/35 to $50. Several of her separate contributions are listed on the same day, a very curious way to make campaign contributions, which are usually in response to mailed solicitations. (She should accumulate them, save on postage.)

This is a scam. It appears to us he is fronting the contributions to hide the contributors. Now, why in the hell would he do that? He doesn't want people to know who his contributors are? What an odd approach for a politician. Now, this woman, Jeanne Mccurdy (is she is a woman, a real or ficticious person?) appears to be mining a population of people who do not wish their identities known.....

How do we find Jeanne McCurdy?

We need to convert this list to a data sheet, so we can compile individual contribution, , the dates and the amounts paid in, and aggregate the total contributions. There are about 5 or 6 people who "feel" like the Hitchcockian Ms. McCurdy in this mess, so far, and we're only 44 pages through a close to 500 page document. Can any Atlas reader tell me how to convert a word document to a data sheet?

More here




A cast of hundreds: Who isn't an Obama foreign policy adviser?!

So Barack Obama has 300 foreign policy advisers. 300. That's quite a carbon footprint. But he needs that many-not just to compensate for his complete lack of foreign policy chops, but because he throws so many of his advisers and acolytes off the bus each week. Gotta have padding. Jennifer Rubin points out that the man who subscribes to the Winnie the Pooh School of Foreign Policy is on the list and adds:

Most troubling is the possibility that the performance of the campaign's foreign policy apparatus is a preview of the Obama administration's foreign policy apparatus. There are apparently hundreds (if not thousands) of folks waiting to join the State and Defense Departments who hold beliefs that defy evidence and logic. They honestly believe that Iraq is unimportant, unconditional direct talks with Iran will unlock the promise of world peace, we can talk up protectionism at home without scaring our trading partners, and the less input from military commanders in war zones the better.

Take your pick as to which theory makes the most sense. But 300? I guess it takes a lot of people to script a foreign trip so tightly that there is no room for a gaffe..

To quote from one of the Obama camp's favorite foreign policy texts, "Pooh's Little Instruction Book:" "Those who are clever, who have a brain, never understand anything."

Source




Obama the spendthrift

The $52 million figure may not be a disaster for the Obama campaign, but it is hardly a success. Not just because it's far below what the Obama campaign projected in June. It's a disappointment because it includes general election contributions from those who had previously maxed out. Remember also that unlike the money McCain is raising, which has to be spent by the time he receives $84 million in public financing, Obama's money needs to last all the way through the election.

With a burn rate of $42 million a month, Obama's campaign can just barely sustain its current levels of spending. And what's left over may not be adequate to run the kind of campaign he needs to win. Just consider despite all the money he's raised, Obama has been outspent on television by 3 to 1 in the last two months. All the stagecraft and theatrics has come with a hefty cost.

Compared to the McCain campaign, Obama has spent three-and-a-half times as much on payroll and benefits, ten times on event staging, two-and-a-half times as much on travel and lodging, and three times as much on food and meetings. Despite being given free protection from the Secret Service, which has proven sufficient for other candidates, the Obama campaign has spent nearly $400,000 on outside security consulting, nearly all of it paid to a security firm that specializes in dangers emerging from "political instability, acts of terrorism, kidnapping, white collar crime, and cyber-attacks."

Although the Obama campaign has portrayed itself as "frugal" for making staffers take public transportation from O'Hare, FEC reports of the campaign's spending paint a very different picture. Obama's overhead is $10 million more per month than McCain's, and this is likely to increase substantially given his campaign's out of control spending and lofty plans for the general election.

Obama recently told reporters, "I've never been a big entourage guy. . And that takes some getting used to." Well, the size of Obama's campaign suggests he's gotten used to the idea very quickly. Before even locking up the nomination, Obama's paid staff was already in excess of 700 people. In the last month, Obama has hired dozens if not hundreds of staffers, and his National Field Coordinator said the campaign anticipates deploying more than 2,000 paid staffers to every state in the country. Sending 15 paid staffers to Texas might make a good sound bite, but politically speaking, it is flushing money down the toilet.

A paid staff of 2,000 is unheard of in the history of presidential elections. Consider that it's five times larger than Bush's campaign staff in 2004, which is the next biggest ever assembled. Indeed, Obama will have more people working on his campaign than President Bush currently has in the whole White House. And if Obama spends like this when he needs to raise the money himself, one can only imagine what he'll do when he can instead tap the tax coffers of the U.S. Treasury.

Source




Obama: Beginning government education at birth?

Recently, after reading an excellent article at American Thinker, I decided to take a glimpse at Senator Obama's education plan. This plan is presented in a more detailed format in a document titled "Barack Obama's Plan for Lifetime Success Through Education." What I read there was more than a little disturbing, particularly his early childhood education plan.

Sen. Obama's plan begins with a "Zero to Five Plan". That is not a plan for pre-kindergarten students; it is a plan for infants beginning just after birth. In fact, one of his "Success Through Education" header statements is "A Pre-School Agenda That Begins At Birth". Sen. Obama would plunk $10 billion a year in federal tax dollars down to provide "high-quality child care" for children, to expand access to Early Head Start (is this redundant?), Head Start, and pre-school, and create a council to the president (himself) which would coordinate these efforts nation-wide.

While Sen. Obama's plan does appear to delegate responsibility for these programs to the various states, one comment in the document gives pause to that thought. Sen. Obama's plan calls the current state of early child education a "patchwork" that is "inadequate". So while the Senator may claim that states will have options within the plan, one might easily assume that funds received from this proposed $10 billion would come with significant strings.

This seems to me to be the policy beginnings of nationalized child care, not simply education. It only rides in the Trojan Horse of "education reform". Sen. Obama's plan dovetails seamlessly with a recent report by the National Health Institutes that the percentage of unmarried births to women age 20-24 has risen to 58%. Why should a young, single mother worry about raising her child? For that matter, why would a young woman of any background think twice about having a child that she probably can't raise without great difficulty? The government will take care of the child - an Obama administration would allow for the child's care and education (read: child rearing) from year zero. And that is the beginning of real state indoctrination.

Source




Obama Supports... Preemptive War?

Oh, I'm sure he didn't mean that. What did he mean? I have no idea, and I doubt he does either. Captain Bullshit's words do not necessarily accord with any sort of coherent reality. But what does this mean?

"The danger ... is that we are constantly fighting the last war, responding to the threats that have come to fruition, instead of staying one step ahead of the threats of the 21st century."

Ermm... wasn't that Bush's rationale for waging a "war of choice" in Iraq? to stay ahead of threats before they came to fruition? Even if Obama wants to claim that Bush's judgment was inaccurate, he seems to agree with the basics of the idea -- and he, like anyone else, must accept that prophecy is a very difficult business, unless you're actually the Lamb of God, which I guess Obama is, so maybe it won't be so hard for Obama to see the future.

Source




An Iraqi view of the Messiah

Even the NYT (excerpts below) sees problems with an American withdrawal from Iraq. For a comment on the propaganda in the full NYT article, see here

A tough Iraqi general, a former special operations officer with a baritone voice and a barrel chest, melted into smiles when asked about Senator Barack Obama. "Everyone in Iraq likes him," said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. "I like him. He's young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president."

But mention Mr. Obama's plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens. "Very difficult," he said, shaking his head. "Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: for now, we don't have that ability." Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Mr. Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.

There was, as Mr. Obama prepared to visit here, excitement over a man who is the anti-Bush in almost every way: a Democrat who opposed a war that many Iraqis feel devastated their nation. And many in the political elite recognize that Mr. Obama shares their hope for a more rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

But his support for troop withdrawal cuts both ways, reflecting a deep internal quandary in Iraq: for many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Mr. Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war. Many Iraqis also acknowledge that security gains in recent months were achieved partly by the buildup of American troops, which Mr. Obama opposed and his presumptive Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, supported.

"In no way do I favor the occupation of my country," said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, "but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point." Like many Iraqis, Mr. Ibrahim sees Mr. Obama favorably, describing him as "much more humane than Bush or McCain." "He seems like a nice guy," Mr. Ibrahim said. But he hoped that Mr. Obama's statements about a relatively fast pullout were mere campaign talk. "It's a very big assumption that just because he wants to pull troops out, he'll be able to do it," he said. "The American strategy in the region requires troops to remain in Iraq for a long time." ...

Race is also a consideration. Muhammad Ahmed Kareem, 49, an engineer from Mosul, said he had high expectations of Mr. Obama because his experience as a black man in America might give him more empathy for others who feel oppressed by a powerful West. "Blacks suffered a lot of discrimination, much like Arabs," Mr. Kareem said. "That's why we expect that his tenure will be much better."

But Mr. Obama also frames the sometimes contradictory feelings Iraqis have about America as the withdrawal of troops has moved closer to the political mainstream in both countries. Already, the units brought in for the so-called surge last year have left, and the Bush administration has in recent days acknowledged the need both to transfer troops from Iraq to an ever-more-volatile Afghanistan and to recognize that a broader withdrawal is an "aspirational goal" for Iraqis.

For General Hiti, who commands a swath of western Baghdad, the American military is a necessary, if vexing, presence. He ticks off the ways it helps: evacuating wounded Iraqi soldiers, bringing in helicopters when things go wrong, defusing bombs, getting detailed pictures of areas from drone planes.

But the issue of withdrawal is immensely complex, and some of the functions mentioned by General Hiti would not be affected under Mr. Obama's plan. The senator is calling for the withdrawal of combat brigades, but has said a residual force would still pursue extremist militants, protect American troops and train Iraqi security forces.

But for some Iraqis the American presence remains the backbone of security in the neighborhood. Saidiya, a southern Baghdad district, was so brutalized by violence a year ago that a young Iraqi television reporter who fled thought he would never come back. But a telephone call from his father in December persuaded him to return. An American unit had planted itself in the district, helping chase away radicals. The family could go out shopping. They could drive their car to the gas station.

"The Americans paved the way for the Iraqi Army there," said the young man, who married this year. "If they weren't there, the Iraqi forces could not have taken control." Even so, he agreed with Mr. Obama's plan for a faster withdrawal. American forces "helped the Iraqi Army to get back its dignity," he said. "They are qualified now."

Falah al-Alousy is the director of an organization that runs a school in an area south of Baghdad that was controlled by religious extremists two years ago. Former insurgents turned against the militant group, but local authorities still rely heavily on Americans to keep the peace; the Iraqi Army, largely Shiite, is not allowed to patrol in the area, Mr. Alousy said. "Al Qaeda would rearrange itself and come back, if the Americans withdraw," he said. As for Mr. Obama's plan for withdrawal, "It's just propaganda for an election."

Most Iraqis dislike the fact that their country is occupied, but a few well-educated Iraqis who have traveled abroad say they would not oppose a permanent American military presence, something that Mr. Obama opposes. Saad Sultan, the Iraqi government official, said his travels in Germany, where there have been American bases since the end of World War II, softened his attitude toward a long-term presence. "I have no problem to have a camp here," he said. "I find it in Germany and that's a strong country. Why not in Iraq?"

Source




Michelle Obama as Political Naif? Hardly...

Barack Obama's campaign released yesterday a statement condemning criticism of various of Michelle Obama's statements on the campaign trail as somehow out-of-bounds, characterizing them as "shameful ... and mean-spirited." As others have noted, describing such criticism of Ms. Obama 'off-limits' is somewhat disingenuous, as her statements were made campaigning on behalf of her husband.

Sen. Obama himself referred to his wife as a 'civilian' of sorts, and not really part of the politics of the campaign.

The 'Michelle Obama's comments can't be criticized' stance is especially specious when one considers Ms. Obama's near life-long connections to political life in Chicago: her father was a Chicago Democratic Party precinct captain under the first Mayor Daley; Jesse Jackson's eldest daughter sang at the Obama's wedding and is the godmother to the Obama's eldest child; and Ms. Obama worked as an aide to the second and current Mayor Daley.

Additionally, it's not as if the beautiful, talented, and double-Ivy League degreed Ms. Obama is some kind of slouch in the business of public relations, either: she has held two highly-paid positions at the University of Chicago Hospitals -- executive director for community affairs (with a salary of about $120,000) and vice president for community and external affairs (with a salary of over $300,000). Ms. Obama has also served on the board of directors of at least five different organizations.

Somehow the notion that someone who grew up around politics, who has a close, long-time friend whose family was 'in the business,' who herself worked for Chicago's Mayor Daley, who herself became a highly-paid executive whose duties presumably included public relations, who served as a board member of multiple organizations, and who herself campaigned for the candidate -- the notion that such a person can be presented as some kind of untouchable political naif -- floating above the fray -- is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





19 July, 2008

Obama predicts that black racism will help him win

(Though he may be wrong if Jesse Jackson is any guide)

If Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black president boosts black turnout as drastically as he predicts, he could crack decades of Republican dominance across the South. That's a big "if." Still, an Associated Press analysis of U.S. Census and voting data from the past four presidential elections shows a potentially dramatic impact should Obama fulfill his pledge to elevate black participation by 30 percent. That would add nearly 1.8 million votes in 11 Southern states, the analysis shows, enough to tip the balance in several that have been Republican strongholds.

Besides the likely increase in black turnout, the Illinois senator also expects a surge of young voters to help him compete in states that have been reliably red since the once solidly Democratic South flipped to the Republicans in 1964. "I can tell you that North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama will be in play," asserts North Carolina Democratic Rep. G.K. Butterfield, an Obama adviser. "We're looking strongly at Tennessee and Mississippi."

Obama set the 30 percent goal himself last August at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30 percent around the country, minimum," he said. "Young people's percentage of the vote goes up 25-30 percent. So we're in a position to put states in play that haven't been in play since LBJ."

The math backs up his analysis - if he can deliver the turnout he promises. In Georgia, the GOP presidential nominee's average margin of victory in the past four elections was 216,000 votes. If 30 percent more voting-age blacks go to the polls in November than the four-year average - with all else equal, and Obama capturing all of those votes - he would win the state by 84,000 ballots. Should 90 percent of those voters go for Obama, a figure he achieved among blacks in some primaries this year, he would still have enough to win the state and its 15 electoral votes.

If Obama reached his goal of a 30 percent increase and brought all those new black voters into his fold, he could also win in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Virginia and Florida. Wins in the six states would give him 81 new electoral votes - enough to beat Arizona Sen. John McCain even if the Republican won almost every other toss-up state in the nation, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Ohio.

A 30 percent boost in black turnout also could pull Obama into a tie with McCain in Mississippi. And in South Carolina, a conservative state that went to President Bush by 17 percentage points four years ago, Obama could come within 17,000 votes - less than a percentage point. Ditto in North Carolina, a state often mentioned as a possible Southern pickup for Obama.

Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland political science professor who has long argued that Democrats don't need to win the South to win the White House, said a 12 percent increase in black turnout across the region would be enough to swing Virginia, Florida and perhaps another state. But he's not sold on Obama's guarantee. "I'll believe a 30 percent increase in the black vote when I see it," Schaller said. "If Obama does it, he will have proved to doubters like me that his organizing skills in Chicago coupled with his vision and charisma are truly transformative. It'll be a thumping on Nov. 4."

Obama's advisers admit they have a distance to go. In four Southern states that were able to provide figures by race - North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana - the number of registered black voters has risen 12 percent since the beginning of 2006. That's a remarkable run, and one that could be further buoyed by an increased turnout among blacks already registered. But white turnout has been up, too.

Also, there's no way Obama will win all black votes, even in this history-making election as the first black candidate on a major-party ballot. About 11 percent of black votes went to Bush in 2004, though that figure is expected to decrease substantially in this year's race between Obama and McCain.

And there is no guarantee that Obama will keep the support of all Democrats who voted for John Kerry, Al Gore and President Clinton in the previous three elections. An AP-Yahoo News election survey has found that 8 percent of all whites say they would be very uncomfortable voting for a black presidential candidate, and even 16 percent of Democrats say they would have at least some reservations. "It would be an important change in the dynamics of Southern politics if Obama reached his goal of increasing black voter turnout by 30 percent," said Ferrel Guillory, who tracks Southern voting as director of the Program on Public Life at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "But he probably can't win simply with that. He's still got to be attractive to white voters."

There are important other factors sure to affect whether this year's vote follows the trends of past elections. McCain's history of bucking Republican orthodoxy could draw moderates to the GOP. On the other hand, 25 percent of voters who call themselves "very conservative" are either backing someone other than McCain or remain undecided, the AP-Yahoo News election survey shows.

As for Obama's registration drive, in North Carolina's Durham County, where 38 percent of residents are black, local Obama organizers boast a volunteer roster of 4,700 people - equivalent to about 2 percent of all people who live in the city of Durham. Faulkner Fox, a local leader for Obama, said the group's members, both black and white, are registering voters at a pace she hasn't seen in 20 years of organizing.

Still, experts wonder. David Bositis, who tracks black voting trends for the Washington-based Joint Center on Political and Economic Studies, says the primaries showed "there is something going on in terms of black voters already. There's evidence they're charged up for this election." But he also said he's more comfortable predicting a turnout increase of 20 percent.

McCain's campaign so far seems comfortable with his chances to continue the GOP's success in the South. The Arizona senator is setting up a campaign organization in Virginia and is considering doing the same in North Carolina. Other staffing decision are to be determined, advisers said. "I certainly don't fault Sen. Obama for trying to put some states in play that haven't been in play in the past," said Mike DuHaime, who advises both the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign. "It's probably a smart political move. I don't think it will pay off in terms of electoral votes."

Source




DOES OBAMA HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHITE VOTERS?



"Poll Finds Obama's Run Isn't Closing Divide on Race," reads the headline on the front page of the July 16th New York Times. The article beneath the headline observes that despite Barack Obama's candidacy, the results of a new CBS/New York Times Poll show that American society is still deeply divided along racial lines. Blacks and whites continue to hold divergent views about the state of race relations in the United States with whites far more optimistic than blacks. Moreover, white and black voters have dramatically different opinions about the nation's first black presidential candidate. Black voters view Obama much more favorably than white voters. In fact a plurality of white voters in the CBS/New York Times Poll had an unfavorable opinion of Obama.

The results of the poll are interesting. But is anyone surprised that Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic nomination contest has not changed the way blacks and whites view race relations in the United States? Or that black voters have much more positive opinions of a black presidential candidate than white voters? Anyone who was surprised by these findings hasn't been following the news for the past 40 years.

There's something important missing from the New York Times article and more generally from commentary on the role of race in the 2008 presidential election: a sense of historical perspective. Racial attitudes are based on people's upbringing and life experiences. They don't change overnight. And opinions about presidential candidates are based on longstanding and deeply held party loyalties and ideological orientations.

The assumption underlying much of the commentary about Barack Obama's candidacy in recent months has been that he has a problem with white voters. While questions about Obama's ability to appeal to white voters have been around since he entered the race, they were accentuated by his weak performance among white voters in some of the presidential primaries. In key swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, exit polls showed Obama trailing Hillary Clinton by a wide margin among white voters. Given his problems with white voters in these Democratic primaries, some pundits have assumed that Obama must also have a problem with white voters in the general election.

So does Barack Obama have a problem with white voters? The answer is a resounding "yes." And so has every other Democratic presidential candidate in the past forty years. The last Democratic candidate for president to win a majority of the white vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Al Gore lost the white vote by 12 points in 2000. John Kerry lost the white vote by 17 points in 2004.

Based on five national polls that have been conducted this month--Gallup, Newsweek, Quinnipiac, CBS/New York Times, and ABC/Washington Post--Barack Obama is currently trailing John McCain by an average of nine points among white voters. So Obama is doing much better than John Kerry and a little better than Al Gore. In fact, the only Democratic presidential candidates in the past four decades who have done better among white voters were Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Not coincidentally, they were also the only successful Democratic presidential candidates in the past four decades. Based on his current showing in the polls, Barack Obama may well be the next one. With whites expected to comprise less than 80 percent of the 2008 electorate, and with a 20-1 margin among black voters and a 2-1 margin among Hispanic voters, Obama's current nine point deficit among white voters would translate into a decisive victory in November.

Source




Nat Hentoff is disillusioned by the flipflopper

During my more than 60 years of covering national politics, I have never seen a candidate's principles and character so effectively tarnished - after so extraordinarily inspiring a start - as Barack Obama's. He has come to resemble another mellifluous orator I came to know in Boston during my first time reporting on a campaign - James Michael Curley, the skilful prestidigitator whom Spencer Tracy masterfully played in the movie "The Last Hurrah." Obama's deflation has not been due to ruthless opposition research by John McCain's team but by the "change" candidate himself. Like millions of Americans, I, for a time, was buoyed by not only the real-time prospect of our first black president but much more by the likelihood that Obama would pierce the dense hypocrisy and insatiable power-grabbing of current American politics.

Also, as a former teacher of constitutional law, Obama gave me "hope I could believe in" that he would rescue the Constitution's separation of powers, resuscitate the Bill of Rights and begin to restore our reputation around the world as a truly law-abiding nation.

Savoring the high expectations he had secured among so many Americans, Obama has decided he can also come closer to securing the Oval Office by softening his starlight enough to change some of his principles toward the calming center of our stormy political waters.

In a defense by Dan Gerstein, a New York political consultant - echoing what you'll be hearing more of from Obama's campaign operatives - the gossamer script goes: "He is trying to broaden his appeal to a larger electorate and to be true to this postpartisan, unifying message that he's been campaigning on." But instead of the ennobling clarion trombones of CHANGE we have been promised, this "adjusting" of one's principles has long been the common juggling of our common politicians.

Accordingly, as his presidential campaign gathered such momentum, Obama, with justifiable pride, pointed to the resounding fact that most of the bountiful funds he was raising came from small donors, "the people," not the sort of supporters who move above us in private jet planes.

But after abandoning his pledge to abide by public financing, this apostle of cleansing the political culture is now going after the high rollers. As the July 3 New York Times reported, "Last week, the Obama campaign collected about $5 million at an event featuring celebrities in Los Angeles. The evening began with a dinner at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion for more than 200 people who had contributed $28,500 per couple, or raised $50,000." Then there is the current furor among a rising number of Obama contributors with wallets far below the $50,000-a-pop crowd about his change on the "compromise" FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that passed the House and Senate, and has been signed by the grateful president.

The flimflam candidate had assured his faithful enthusiasts that he would filibuster this bill (which will immunize the telecommunications companies that enabled the president to break the law in his once-secret warrantless wiretapping) that turned our privacy rights upside down and out. Now, by dismissing the scores of lawsuits against these companies from Americans wanting to know whether they've been ensnared in this giant government-spun Web, the president and such supporters as Obama will have made it close to impossible to conduct meaningful investigations...

More here




Obama's 'Judgment'

Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend, with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies. He'll no doubt learn a lot, in addition to getting a good photo op. What we'll be waiting to hear is whether the would-be Commander in Chief absorbs enough to admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the "judgment" he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated Mr. Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.

Yet Mr. Obama now wants to ignore that judgment, and earlier this week his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition. Lest media amnesia set in, here is what the Obama site previously said: "The problem - the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war."

Mr. Obama's site now puts a considerably brighter gloss on the surge. Yet the candidate himself shows no signs of rethinking. In a foreign-policy address Tuesday, the Senator described the surge, in effect, as a waste of $200 billion, an intolerable strain on military resources and a distraction from what he sees as a more important battle in Afghanistan. He faulted Iraq's leaders for failing to make "the political progress that was the purpose of the surge." And his 16-month timetable for near-total withdrawal apparently remains firm.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama could at least get his facts straight. Earlier this month, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad reported that the Iraqi government had met 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set for it in 2006. The Sunni bloc in Iraq's parliament is returning to the government after a year's absence. Levels of sectarian violence have held steady for months - at zero. (In January 2007, Mr. Obama had predicted on MSNBC that the surge would not only fail to curb sectarian violence, but would "do the reverse.") If this isn't sufficient evidence of "genuine political accommodation," we'd like to know what, in his judgment, is.

The freshman Senator also declared that "true success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge."

Yet the reason Iraq is finally getting that kind of government is precisely because of the surge, which neutralized al Qaeda and gave Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the running room to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite Mahdi Army. And the reason the U.S. can now contemplate more troop withdrawals is because the surge has created the conditions that mean the U.S. would not be leaving a security vacuum. On Wednesday, Mr. Maliki's government assumed security responsibility in yet another province, meaning a majority of provinces are now under full Iraqi control.

Mr. Obama acknowledges none of this. Instead, his rigid timetable for withdrawal offers Iraq's various groups every reason to seek their security in local militias such as the Mahdi Army or even al Qaeda, thereby risking a return to the desperate situation it confronted in late 2006. The Washington Post has criticized this as obstinate, and Democratic foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution reacted this way: "To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule - regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground - is the height of absurdity."

Mr. Obama does promise to "consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government" in implementing his plans. But he would have shown more sincerity on this score had he postponed Tuesday's address until after he visited Iraq and had a chance to speak with those generals and Iraqis. The timing of his speech made it appear not that he is open to what General David Petraeus tells him, but that he wants to limit the General's military options.

Mr. Bush has often been criticized for refusing to admit his Iraq mistakes, but he proved that wrong in ordering the surge that reversed his policy and is finally winning the war. The next President will now take office with the U.S. in a far better security position than 18 months ago. Mr. Obama could help his own claim to be Commander in Chief, and ease doubts about his judgment, if he admits that Mr. Bush was right.

Source




Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech

'Civilian security force' excised from 'call to service' transcript

The stunning comments from Democrat Sen. Barack Obama that the United States needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have mysteriously disappeared from published transcripts of the speech. In the comments, Obama confirmed the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting a comment on the situation. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website. Those transcripts of Obama's speech in Colorado Springs July 2 include the following:

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

And we'll use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create an online network where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.

It was at that point in the speech, at about 16 minutes on a YouTube video, Obama says: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue, and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about such statements. "If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote. He added that he wants the help of "every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election." Since Farah reported the statement, it's been the subject of heated discussions on the Internet.

The Blue Collar Muse said, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. . The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

On the forum page for Blue Collar Muse, "MichaelnotMike" said, "I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATFE, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, that already did that." Added Jenn Sierra, "The other, more likely, possibility here is that Obama has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. That would explain why he hasn't elaborated on the idea."

Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service." "I am running for president, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines." And he told the audience he would "ask for your service."

"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges. . As president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer."

He also talks about additional work for veterans, and a new "Energy Corps" for the two million "young Americans who are out of school and out of work."

Source. See also here (including video).




What Would Obama Die For?

Since securing the Democratic Party's nomination in June, Barack Obama has been busy redefining himself. He has come out for a government surveillance bill he once opposed. He's expressed support for funding religious programs with tax dollars. He reversed his stance on accepting public financing. He reversed his view of the D.C. gun ban. And he hinted that he will "refine" his position on Iraq, only to push back against himself this week and reiterate his Iraq withdrawal plan.

Mr. Obama's position shifts are clumsy and ill-timed. He has built his franchise on the concept that he is a new kind of politician. But of late, he has become the reincarnation of Clintonian triangulation. That does not mean his repositioning is wholly foolish. The timing is foolish. At some point the most liberal Democratic nominee since at least 1984 had to consider the center. Too bad for Mr. Obama that he waited until it appeared politically expedient.

Mr. Obama's moves may test his base as much as the candidate himself. Recall Hubert Humphrey, a pioneer on civil rights in 1948. Two decades later, Humphrey would not repudiate Lyndon Johnson. Humphrey's past liberal stances were forgotten. To some liberals he was on the wrong side of Vietnam, so many in the antiwar base called him no liberal at all. Today's antiwar Democratic base will have to decide how much slack it can offer Mr. Obama when he returns from Iraq.

Mr. Obama would have been braver and shrewder if he shifted to the center on some issues months ago. As early as mid-February he had the electoral math to assure the nomination. He could have then taken one big and bold stance that would have irked and even infuriated some liberals. If he had done so, he would have remained politically alive, offered evidence he was larger than liberalism and thus improved his general election positioning. He would also look brave. After all, despite John McCain's shifts on issues like taxes, Mr. Obama has long known he would face the man who built his franchise on grit.

Yet Democrats are not pragmatic these days. About one in 10 Democratic primary voters said that the quality that mattered most to them was that their candidate "has the best chance to win in November."

For the general election some pragmatism, not at the sacrifice of principle, is a prerequisite. Since the massive Democratic year of 2006 there have been clues for Mr. Obama that rural, exurban, or red America had not suddenly fallen in love with the Democrats' left wing as much as out of love with George W. Bush's Republicanism - and at some point Mr. Obama would be compelled to break with liberalism to expand the electoral map.

There was much ado about the May special election victories of Democratic Reps. Don Cazayoux in Louisiana and Travis Childers in Mississippi. Both ran in districts Republicans had held for decades. The political class viewed their victories as harbingers of the ascendant Democratic Party. Less noticed was that both candidates ran as conservatives on cultural issues, opposing legalized abortion and gun-control measures. Mr. Cazayoux backed Mr. Obama but ran as a "John Breaux' Democrat." Mr. Childers has not endorsed Mr. Obama. These Democratic wins were akin to the Senate victories in 2006 by Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania and John Tester in Montana. Both men broke with the party's platform to make inroads with base-Republican voters - white men, for example.

The Obama campaign seems only superficially in touch with the lessons of these victories. Last month Mr. Obama skipped the Democratic Leadership Council's annual gathering, though it was held a block from his national headquarters in Chicago. It was the DLC that made Bill Clinton. While no group perfectly represents moderate or Blue Dog Democrats, Mr. Obama's no-show could easily be seen as a brash statement that he is not substantively concerned with moderate or conservative Democratic ideas or their voters.

Now Mr. Obama is acting the centrist. But by coming this late in the process, his shift appears to be purely political. Democrats like Messrs. Casey, Tester, Cazayoux and Childers have moderate biographies because they have both conservative and liberal beliefs. They have stances to testify to those beliefs. We're just getting to know Mr. Obama. Perhaps, he needs to better know himself.

A couple years ago Norman Mailer and I were talking about character and Democratic troubles with men. Exit polling shows more white men than women and minorities vote on character. "The one trouble with [Mr.] Clinton," Mailer said, "You could say there was not a single political idea he was willing to die for."

Mr. Obama has to stand firm for controversial beliefs. He also must heed the center. The two only conflict when the stance repudiates the politician. Mr. Obama needs a bold stand that will not contradict his past, but appear to be an outgrowth of it. Today, however, Mr. Obama seems to be moving toward Mr. Clinton's center while moving away from his core self. Who is this new Mr. Obama? If he does not answer that question, Republicans will.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





18 July, 2008

Obama lies about oil

An Obama ad says he has a "fast track alternative" to imported oil. Actually, it's a 10-year proposal with no guarantees

Summary

Obama released a national ad saying he has "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, those turn out to be his proposal to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.

Analysis

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released the ad and said it would run on national cable TV networks starting July 17. According to the news release, the 30-second spot "underscores Barack Obama's understanding of national security in a new century." Perhaps so. Much of what it says is accurate enough, but on one point we find that it strains the truth and could easily give viewers a false impression.

As an example of Obama's supposed grasp of 21st-century security threats, the ad says he has "fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations." Pictured on screen are images of whirling windmills generating electricity, a solar array against a blue sky, and a couple of white-coated lab workers, one of them peering into a microscope.

The campaign says the ad is referring to Obama's long-standing proposal to spend $150 billion over 10 years for research into alternative energy - "to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid."

Spending that money may well be a good idea, but it's not our place to judge. We do object to describing a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, as a "fast track" to anything.

We also point out that even over the long term there can be no guarantee that just spending more for research will produce the sort of new fuels, vehicles or other breakthroughs that would actually reverse the growth of oil imports. Keep in mind that the U.S. imported the equivalent of 13.4 million barrels of oil per day last year, up nearly 17 percent from just five years earlier and 32 percent higher than in 1997. This is a huge problem that has been getting worse for a long time. Reversing it will not be "fast" or painless.

We repeat: We're not knocking Obama's 10-year plan. We cited it in our July 9 article as the reason that a Republican National Committee ad was wrong to say that Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem. We're not endorsing Obama's plan either. We are saying Obama is stretching the truth to call this decade-long program a "fast-track" alternative or to say that "we [will] stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations" as a result.

Source




Just one of the things Obama doesn't understand

Obama Doesn't Understand Role of Joint Chiefs: Will MSM Take Note?



A couple days ago at the gym, listening to a Hugh Hewitt podcast and perhaps not paying as much attention as I should have while pedaling away, I heard Hugh mention that Barack Obama doesn't understand the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What was Hugh referring to? As the British would say: the penny just dropped. A few minutes ago, CNN's Situation Room played a clip of Obama saying this about his plan for Iraq:

BARACK OBAMA: I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out.

There's only one problem. The Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces. That authority resides in the commanders of the various Unified Combatant Commands. CENTCOM is the command with responsibility for Iraq [and 26 other countries including Afghanistan and Pakistan]. Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed Pres. Bush's appointment of Gen. David Petraeus as CENTCOM commander. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno is the new US commander for Iraq, replacing Gen. Petraeus. Those are the people, along with the Secretary of Defense, to whom the orders Obama spoke of would be issued.

Source




More a flip than a flip flop

From Australia to London to almost all points in between, if there are two things people know about Barack Obama, one of them is that he recently has changed his positions on abortion, gun control, capital punishment, FISA laws, the status of Jerusalem, faith-based federal programs, public financing of his campaign, welfare, NAFTA and free trade, the surge in Iraq, and his commitment to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his Trinity Church, among other public policies.

But it is said by his supporters -- and readily acknowledged by most public commentators -- that this is what candidates for president routinely do. If Republicans, they run to the right in the primary and run to the center in the general election. If Democrats, they run to the left in the primary and then to the center in the general. This is the policy version of the cynical Clinton defense: Everybody does it (although there is no evidence that any other president in history copulated a young White House intern). But we all know about the run to the center in presidential general elections.

Who can forget Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, when he came out for tax cuts, lower social spending and more military spending in the primary, only to back away from those policies in the general election when he famously said: "I got a little rhetorically over-excited during the primary. On closer examination, President Carter seems to have built up our defenses sufficiently. We will have to see about those tax cuts; we may need the revenues for more social spending."

Or what about the 1968 campaign, when Nixon ran on a law-and-order platform in the primary, condemning hippies, riots and the rising urban crime. Then, in the general election that fall, all the networks covered Nixon's extraordinary visit to death row at San Quentin prison, after which Dick Nixon explained, his eyes red from heartfelt tears (though some people say it was from squinting at the cross tabulations of his polls that showed he couldn't carry Pennsylvania without carrying liberal Montgomery County), that by talking with the men on death row, he realized that capital punishment wasn't the answer; more spending on early education programs was needed. He then claimed he had a secret plan to outspend Hubert Humphrey on urban renewal.

For one last example, consider George McGovern's 1972 campaign. He, of course, ran a powerful primary battle to end the war in Vietnam. On the floor of the Senate, he proclaimed: "Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman or a senator or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam because it is not our blood that is being shed."

And then in September, he went to Vietnam to consult with the generals. Upon his return, he pivoted to the center. He announced: "Well, leaving may not be practical. The generals tell me just another 200,000 troops and we can win this thing. So what the heck; let's go for a victory, as all of the independent voters and most conservative blue-collar Democrats want. I may be progressive, but I'm practical. If I want to win this election, I've got to promise to win the war."

Of course, none of those things happened in past presidential elections. While some past presidential candidates may have emphasized more moderate parts of their agendas in the fall (although many, such as Reagan and McGovern, never even did that), I would appreciate Obama supporters (or others) bringing to my attention examples of straight-out reversals of one major position after another, such as Obama has executed recently.

I am not aware of anything remotely comparable to Sen. Obama's recent reversals of positions. To my knowledge, it is without moral precedent in modern American presidential elections. It is an act of political cynicism, compounded in its audacity by Sen. Obama's explicit claim to being above politics as usual.

This election season is getting interesting. Obama seems to have opened himself up to Dr. Samuel Johnson's famous admonition: "Be not too hasty to trust or admire the teachers of virtue; they discourse like angels, but they live like men."

Source




Obama's NAACP Speech

Sen. Obama's speech before the NAACP convention has been receiving widespread praise for forthrightly addressing hot button topics: he told the crowd that black parents need to turn off the TV, put away the video games, attend parent-teacher conferences, and help their children with their homework. The AP described the speech as "stirring."

Not quite. By their measure, the AP presumably would declare an Obama speech on eating your vegetables and flossing daily "stirring."

Obama's comments were a welcome bit of common sense, but ultimately underwhelming. Had Obama's speech addressed the issue of, say, the prolific black abortion rate - that would be worthy of notice, especially at a time when, as William McGurn noted in yesterday's WSJ, a group of black pro-lifers were protesting the convention. To raise the issue would've required Obama to tackle two of the most volatile topics in American politics, the intersection of which is generally considered off-limits in public discourse (In fact , the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights, which has an impressively expansive mandate to address all policies and practices related to disparities on the basis of race, sex, and other protected classes, is specifically prohibited by statute from addressing any disparities related to abortion).

McGurn notes that black women are nearly five times as likely as whites to have an abortion. Almost half of all black pregnancies end in abortion. Whatever one's views on abortion, those numbers aren't something to celebrate. Raising the issue and urging solutions to lower the numbers would require a bit more political courage than telling people to do their homework. But there's little evidence in Obama's political career of doing anything other than the expedient.

Source




Understanding Jackson's Just Released Comment

TVNewser breaks more in the matter of Hot Mic comments made by Jesse Jackson via Fox News. While the "N" word will get the attention, the actual gist of Jackson's comment reveals that, like many others, Jackson believes Obama to be an elitist.

Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling n-s how to behave.

Jackson is actually projecting the attitude that many black people are somehow less than onto Obama, in other words, that he is treating them like niggers in terms of how he is approaching certain factions of the black community.

If that spells any potential trouble for Obama, it is in the area of black voter turnout in the Fall. If many in the black community begin to perceive Obama as someone who thinks he is somehow better than them, they could conclude he's no better than the average white guy and stay home.

Whether or not that sense of Obama is widespread within the black community, or just a product of Jackson's jealousy remains to be seen. But it is interesting to note that Jackson echoes the "elitist" attack on Obama, usually reserved for Right-wing pundits. I guess they've pegged Obama right in this case. Don't look for that to become a cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker anytime soon.

Source




Some Good News For Liberals

Post below recycled from Discriminations. See the original for links

In the past week or so Obamaphiles have been dismayed to see their (messiah) candidate's lead in the polls diminish dramatically. (See Rasmussen daily tracking polls here.) Most observers attribute this decline to a highly publicized series of rapid flip-flops on major issues, nicely summarized by Dick Morris here:

After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn't mean it.

From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers -- but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Some Obama supporters reply that there have been no flip-flops, that accusations of flip-flopping are just more noise from the Republican "attack machine." Others acknowledge they did occur but insist that's a Good Thing, because the new, more popular positions will make Obama more electable. Obama himself characteristically denies any change (these alleged changes are not, I suppose, changes we can believe in), saying in effect that his positions have been misinterpreted, taken out of context, etc., and that his recent statements have simply been more nuanced explanations of what he has been saying all along.

But, liberals, take heart! All is not bleak on the liberal landscape. On the one issue that most concerns us here, Obama has been steadfast, unwaffling, and consistent: just as he always has, he continues to support governments and private entities dispensing benefits and burdens to individuals based on their race, ethnicity, or sex.

True, there is a certain tension between Obama's rigid support for racial preference policies and his occasional rhetorical nods to a post-racial America that, like his earlier bi-racial self, is neither black not white, etc. But since he has never opposed any racial preference policy and has re-iterated his longstanding opposition to state initiatives that would require states to treat their citizens without regard to race, most people now recognize that rhetoric for what it is: rhetoric.

ADDENDUM

When Obama's lofty rhetoric falls to earth, it conflicts not only with the policies he supports but also with what he says when he's not speaking in rhetorical flourishes. As I've noted a number of times, such as here, here, and here, when Obama answers questions about affirmative action what he says is usually "a textbook model of waffling obfuscation."

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





17 July, 2008

The Obama shuffle: Australia has already seen where that strategy ends up



The latest political gimmick is to claim there is no difference between Left and Right any more. In his bid to become prime minister, Kevin Rudd wrapped himself in the language of post-partisanship last year.

Democrat Barack Obama is taking it to new levels in his bid to win the US presidency. He is the post-partisan candidate, he says, the man gliding above old-style politics in an age where ideology is apparently a thing of the past. Notice how it's only those on the Left who cloak themselves in this talk of post-partisanship? In time, reality is likely to prove this to be just another duplicitous political trick to hide real political agendas.

With the Cold War over and the fall of the Berlin Wall, it may be that the contours of the political landscape have shifted to the point where battles between capital and labour are now minor skirmishes. Certainly, it would be splendid to assume there is now some grand consensus, where principles of free markets and the freedom of the individual have prevailed to the point where the battles between Left and Right can be relegated to the chapters of political history covering 1917 to 1989.

So what's left to fight about in 2008? In a word, plenty. For all of his high-falutin' talk about being Post-Partisan Man, Obama is perpetrating a hoax on American voters. Anyone familiar with Obama's political history would realise that he is to the left of Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. He is ranked as the most liberal senator by the National Journal's 27th annual analysis of congressional voting patterns. No surprise given he has voted against tax cuts, opposed bans on partial birth abortion, and has shown an anathema towards free trade pacts.

America's most left-wing senator is pitching himself as the transforming, unifying figure who represents a new style of politics. As keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wooed Democrats by announcing: "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America: there is the United States of America." So began a love affair with the senator for Illinois.

In recent weeks, post-partisan Obama has traumatised many Democrats by lurching to the Right. Turns out there is a conservative America. But then Obama was never a credible post-partisan politician. As a senator, he has never sided with his opponents in Congress. Not once. In reality, Obama is the gritty Chicago politician who knows that, having sewn up the primaries with his left-wing rhetoric, a different political calculation is now required to win the White House.

Such is his raw political cunning, Obama planned a political rally at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, the historical symbol of German unification. German Chancellor Angela Merkel rejected it as inappropriate.

Called the Potomac shuffle, presidential candidates traditionally move centre to shore up the swing voters and try to take votes from their opponents. But even by the standards of yore, Obama is, as one American commentator said, "quite a mover on the dance floor." Having rejected old-style political manipulation, Obama is now mastering the art.

Obama has shifted from his original position of talking with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with "no precondition". He has moderated his policy of withdrawing US soldiers from Iraq. And the hip young Democrat has been lip-synching the words of conservatives on the US Supreme Court by supporting the death penalty for child rapists and backing the Second Amendment right of Americans to own handguns.

Obama is shrewd. He knows he has to play down Hollywood's love affair with him, the fact that Europe has gone ga-ga over him and those soft-lens photos of him that keep appearing on the front cover of Rolling Stone. So, he has recently courted the religious Right by supporting President George W. Bush's initiative to promote "faith-based" social welfare programs.

He has reached out to white working-class voters by donning a flag pin on his lapel, something he eschewed right after September 11, telling reporters that "my patriotism speaks for itself". Now he's hoping that his flag pin will speak to voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where he lost the primaries against Hillary Clinton.

Far from being the post-partisan healer of a divided nation, there are, as David Brooks wrote in The New York Times, two Obamas. The great orator who uses high-minded, post-partisan language and operates at a policy free zone of 10,000 metres. And then there's Fast Eddy: the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago politician who'd throw you under a truck for votes. Actually, Obama threw his grandmother and his preacher under that truck in order to win votes when they said things that didn't suit his campaign.

Yet Obama still speaks the appealing language of post-partisanship. Fused with the even more powerful message of change, Obama's core constituency of well-heeled progressives love it. Sections of the media adore it. So do idealistic young students, who have taken to adopting Obama's middle name - Hussein - as a sign of solidarity. And if middle America falls for it too, it's because they want to believe the post-partisan rhetoric. It's not because it's true.

Indeed, American voters would do well to cast their eyes over to Australia. A not dissimilar line of post-partisanship was paraded during our federal election last year. Rudd, the Labor politician, eschewed Left labels. He was the self-declared "economic conservative". And it was heartening to see a Rudd Labor Government appoint a minister for deregulation.

Unfortunately their pre-election sensible economic talk is undermined by their post-election climate change walk. The Rudd Government's position on climate change reflects that stubborn attachment to utopian solutions. There is no pragmatic caution or economic conservatism on show as they push ahead with an emissions trading system that will impose on Australian businesses and consumers the single biggest set of regulations and costs seen in this country. All for a good cause, they say. But that good cause is built on a classic left-wing hope and a prayer, not reality.

The Rudd Government hopes that the biggest emitters of carbon - India, China and the US - will follow suit. And the Australian economy will be punished until that climate change utopia is reached. As an editorial in The Wall Street Journal Asia said yesterday, "Rudd just wants to do what every Labor pol likes: tax industry and redistribute the proceeds, at huge cost to the economy."

No more Left and Right? Wrong. Just as Australian voters are now discovering that post-partisan talk is crafty election rhetoric, American voters may discover even greater duplicity in Obama's post-partisan bid for the White House. Underneath his powerful message lies an old-fashioned tax and spend, big government liberal. The question is whether that happens before or after they choose their next president.

Source




Mikhail Sergeyevich Obama

Post below recycled from TARANTO. See the original for links

"Barack Obama received a prideful welcome from the annual NAACP convention Monday night, but in a stirring speech to the nation's oldest civil rights organization, he nonetheless insisted blacks must show greater responsibility for improving their own lives," the Associated Press reports from Cincinnati:

The man who could become the first black president urged Washington to provide more education and economic assistance. He called on corporate America to exercise greater social responsibility. But he also received his most lusty applause as he urged blacks to demand more of themselves.

"If we're serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives. There's nothing wrong with saying that," Obama told a crowd estimated at 3,000. "But with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV set and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, setting a good example. That's what everybody's got to do."

This is of a piece with the comments that led Jesse Jackson to fantasize about lynching Obama. It got us to thinking that maybe Obama is the Mikhail Gorbachev of the civil rights movement.

Consider the similarities: Gorbachev represented a generational change from Brezhnev and his short-lived successors. Obama represents a generational change from the likes of Jesse Jackson. Gorbachev never intended to bring down communism, only to reform it. Obama says he backs racial preferences but is not wedded to their current form. Gorbachev was a media darling. Obama . . . well, if Time does a "person" of the decade in 2010, can there be any doubt who it'll be?

Of course there are differences; all analogies are imperfect. The civil rights movement, whatever its flaws in its contemporary form, did enormous good for black Americans. The same can hardly be said for Soviet communism and those who lived under it. Gorbachev withdrew from Afghanistan; Obama says he'll invade Pakistan.

Still, here is the central point: Obama, like Gorbachev, may--without meaning to--bring about the collapse of an ideological movement that began idealistically but was corrupted and ultimately exhausted.

Obama Firm in Opposition to Hitler

The New Yorker this week has been getting a lot of attention for its satirical Barack Obama cover (about which more in the next item), but we decided to go nuts and actually read the article. One thing that struck us was author Ryan Lizza's description of the 2002 speech in which Obama announced his opposition to the liberation of Iraq:

Obama's now famous speech was notable for the absence of the traditional tropes of the antiwar left. . . . "Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an antiwar rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances," he told the crowd. He then went further, defending justifiable wars in almost glorious terms. "The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's Army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow-troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars." It took some nerve to tweak the crowd in this way.

So Lizza is crediting Obama with political courage for backing the Union in the Civil War and the Allies in World War II, 140 and 60 years, respectively, after the fact. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!

The cartoon

Speaking of humor, Barack Obama's supporters are showing a distinct lack of it in response to The New Yorker's cover, featuring a cartoon that depicts a turban-clad Obama fist-bumping his wife, Michelle, who wears an afro, cammies and a machine gun, making her look like a 1960s black-power radical. The pair appear to be in the Oval Office, where an American flag burns in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall. It's a wicked satire of Obama's Islamophobia.

"The response from both Democrats and Republicans was explosive," reports the New York Times. Professional humorists have either had difficulty coming up with Obama jokes or found that they were poorly received:

There has been little humor about Mr. Obama: about his age, his speaking ability, his intelligence, his family, his physique. And within a late-night landscape dominated by white hosts, white writers, and overwhelmingly white audiences, there has been almost none about his race. "We're doing jokes about people in his orbit, not really about him," said Mike Sweeney, the head writer for [Conan] O'Brien on "Late Night." . . .

When [Jon] Stewart on "The Daily Show" recently tried to joke about Mr. Obama changing his position on campaign financing, for instance, he met with such obvious resistance from the audience, he said, "You know, you're allowed to laugh at him." Mr. Stewart said in a telephone interview on Monday, "People have a tendency to react as far as their ideology allows them."

Salon's Gary Kamiya blames George W. Bush:

Vast swaths of the left have apparently been so traumatized by the Big Lie techniques employed by the Bush administration, its media lickspittles like Fox News, and the right-wing attack machine that they have come to regard all images or texts that contain negative stereotypes as too politically dangerous to run. If you satirically depict Obama as an Islamist terrorist, in this view, you are only reinforcing and giving broader currency to right-wing smears.

The Los Angeles Times reports on Obama backers upset about the cartoon:

Chicago Tribune columnist/blogger Eric Zorn gave notice that he is waiting for the magazine to launch an equal-ink takedown depicting John McCain as "about 150 years old and spouting demented non-sequiturs in the middle of a violent temper tantrum while, in the corner, his wife is passed out next to a bottle of pills."

Actually, someone who has maintained a little more perspective already obliged. David Horsey, the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, riffed on the Blitt illustration with a McCain portrait of his own.

Horsey's image shows a drooling, wheelchair-bound McCain, singing "Bomb bomb bomb--bomb bomb Iran," as wife Cindy pours dozens of pills from a vial and implores her husband, "Take some of my meds to get through the inaugural parade!"

The Horsey cartoon appears here. As far as we know, it has upset no one. So: A cartoon of Obama inspires fury and outrage. A cartoon of McCain leads everyone to shrug. Obama is being treated like Muhammad, McCain like Jesus.




The emptyhead on GM Job and Production Cuts

Put on your hip waders. Barack Obama needs Michigan. Obama's campaign today issued a statement responding to GM's announcement that the troubled automaker will be laying off salaried workers, cutting production, suspending its dividend, and borrowing more money in response to its lagging sales. Obama's statement begins with the obvious boilerplate:

We need real change in Washington.

Change ... in Washington? Isn't it obvious? Continuing...

That means no longer turning a blind eye to 3.5 million lost manufacturing jobs. It means recognizing the continued importance of the manufacturing sector in our economy, and having a plan to help revive it.

We need to 'revive the manufacturing sector'? But hasn't manufacturing output in the US increased by about 60% since the mid 80s?

Source




Winning in Afghanistan: Obama sees problems; McCain sees a solution.

BARACK OBAMA IS STRIVING MIGHTILY to pass the commander-in-chief test by proposing that U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq, where we are on the verge of a decisive victory against al Qaeda and Iran's "special group" proxies, and reinforce the NATO mission in Afghanistan, where at best we're only holding our own. Setting aside the timeless military wisdom that great captains reinforce success, it's instructive to compare Obama's plan for Afghanistan with that of his rival, John McCain.

First, the Obama approach, as outlined in his "New Strategy for a New World" speech today: redeploy two additional U.S. combat brigades into Afghanistan, get greater contributions and fewer restrictions from our NATO partners, accelerate the training of Afghan security forces, "invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing," bolster the Karzai government and pressure the government of Pakistan to pacify the Pashtun tribal belts along the border. Nothing wrong with any of this--although "standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people" is no substitute for some very tough love directed at the Pakistani army--but a little underwhelming for a "war we must win" that Obama argues is the real central front in the Long War. Obama is not aiming to win, but to "finish" the war.

By contrast, the McCain approach, as outlined in brief remarks this morning: three brigades, not two. A clear counterinsurgency strategy, modeled on the success of the surge in Iraq (a method that Obama still contends is a failure). A coherent campaign plan, synchronizing not just military but U.S. and NATO civilian efforts as well, again modeled on the plan devised by Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker in Baghdad. A request not just for more troops and fewer caveats from NATO, but a demand for unity of command. An accompanying Afghan surge, doubling the size of the Afghan National Army--not only a proven fighting force but the one true expression of Afghan nationalism and the most competent institution of the Kabul government. McCain seems less interested in "finishing" the war than winning it.

The differences are not small ones, and reflect a distinction between the kind of staff-driven, laundry-list mush that sees the immensity of a problem and a leader-driven set of priorities that sees a solution. It is the distinction between Obama's opposition to the Iraq surge and McCain's support for it: not just the courage to make the tough choice, but the clarity to follow the right course. It's also the distinction between winning the war and simply ending it.

Source




Obama knows oil like he knows bowling

Monday, Obama: Offshore drilling won't reduce prices.

Tuesday, oil market: Prices drop $7 a barrel on Bush's call to drill offshore.

Iraq, the 2nd Amendment, bowling . is there anything that Democratic Sen. Barack Obama does know?

On Monday, Obama said: "If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks. But most experts, even within the Bush Administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."

President Bush officially lifted his ban on offshore drilling, kicking it over to Congress for action. Within an hour, the price of oil fell $7 a barrel. It's looking more and more like Obama will stay in the Senate.

Source




Closed ears

The press almost totally ignored Michelle Obama's observation last week that the $600 stimulus check taxpayers received from Uncle Sam was only enough to buy a pair of earrings. The Washington Times political reporter Ralph Z. Hallow notes that when he mentioned the incident in separate phone conversations with several well-known political commentators, the response from each was, "She said what? How come I haven't heard that before now?"

Why indeed? Mrs. Obama, who has been tagged as an elitist by foes, again opened herself to that charge, but the press (and John McCain's campaign) seemed to be focused exclusively on the gaffe McCain surrogate Phil Gramm made in saying Americans were a nation of whiners when it comes to the economy.

That same day, Mrs. Obama, addressing a women's panel in Pontiac, Mich., with Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm in the audience, answered a question about the economic stimulus checks mailed by the U.S. government earlier this year. "You're getting $600," she said to the audience of mostly black women. "What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month."

She added: "Barack's approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good. And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

Source




Obama's nuts



The fact that the former Democratic presidential candidate and civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson wanted to cut out some of Barack Obama's nuts for himself was hardly a surprise to anyone familiar with their miraculous properties. For a long time, people from all cultures of America and beyond have sought to incorporate Obama's nuts into their lives, both as objects of beauty and as tools for the body, mind and spirit.

Every Obama's nut is unique with various properties and characteristics and has the ability to induce hope, as well as store, receive, and transmit energy. Other legendary properties include the ability to attract compassion and understanding of the media, reveal the location of other people's money, ward off unwanted inquiries, and prevent drug overdose

Despite the common fears, Jackson's plan to collect Obama's nuts wasn't meant to hurt the presidential hopeful - it is a known fact that for every cut out Obama's nut, two more will grow in its place. For every four cut out nuts, eight more will grow, and so on. As of last month, Obama's scrotum resembled a large cluster of table grapes that experts compare to a delicious mix between Fantasy Seedless and Bluebell.

One or two Obama's nuts are occasionally found in shower drains at hotels along his campaign trail. People who find them usually obtain good fortune, boundless wisdom, and total protection from the FBI.

Excerpt from the inimitable People's Cube

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. See also AUSTRALIAN CARTOONS by "Zeg". My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





16 July, 2008

Obama on Iraq

Barack Obama described his plan for Iraq in a New York Times editorial. Obama anchored is piece on "the call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq". Obama wrote, "we should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States." The BBC had access to Maliki's actual press conference and wrote this (emphasis mine):

US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline. The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates. .. It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.

There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.

In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal". What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."

Intrigued by the difference between the press release version and Maliki's actual remarks, the BBC dug further and found that Iraq's position was somewhat nebulous. The Status of Forces negotiations are still underway between the US and Iraq and it would have been natural for Maliki to remain vague about a matter that is still under negotiation. The BBC tracked the subsequent changes and found the Iraqi position to suggest both meanings as one would have expected on a matter on which is still under discussion.

Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence". Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.

The impression of a hardening Iraqi government line was reinforced the following day by comments from the National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. He was quoted as saying that Iraq would not accept any agreement which did not specify a deadline for a full withdrawal of US troops. Significantly, Mr Rubaie was speaking immediately after a meeting with the senior Shiite clerical eminence, Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

But in subsequent remarks, Mr Rubaie rode back from a straightforward demand for a withdrawal deadline. He said the talks were focused on agreeing on "timeline horizons, not specific dates", and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces.

But Barack Obama has taken one point under negotiation and assumed an outcome even though it is an actually still under discussion. He went on to write at the NYT about the "will of the Iraqi people" which he presumably knows in advance:

They call any timetable for the removal of American troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government. But this is not a strategy for success - it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

What happens if the "timeline horizons" that the Iraqi government negotiates with the US are longer than Obama's plan for withdrawal? The Iraqis could hardly force the US to stay. So a President Obama's policy would be determinative. If that policy happened to coincide with the "will of the Iraqi people" it would be just ducky. But for the moment Obama hasn't asked them.

Source




Obama: I Have A Plan

More political nonsense, than an actual plan, Obama offers up his foggy vision of what to do about Iraq. He leaves himself so many outs, it amounts to nothing. And the would be Commander-In-Chief fails to take into account America's long-term strategic interests. No doubt the troops left behind longer in hot zones will take great comfort in knowing their supporting elements are bailing out just as the enemy is likely to pour on the heat as Obama retreats.

And as for permanent bases in Iraq, only a fool would not attempt to establish same. It will take decades, at least, to make America's infrastructure capable of supporting alternative energy. In the meantime, we are locked to events in the Middle East. Iraq presents the perfect location to project power there when need be.

Obama would surrender the Middle-East, still a hot bed of terrorism, with Iran, Syria and Lebanon as tinder ... and with the safety of Israel always in question. Ultimately, he would be turning the region back to the control of whatever anti-American despots want to seize control of this or that nation or region and leave America with a bigger war to fight because Obama cut and ran.

I wouldn't want this clown watching my back in a Chicago street fight, let alone in the struggle against Mid-East generated terrorism. I suspect he did his community organizing during the day, or in the safety of some social worker-like office. Come to think of it, I bet the social workers took more risks than Obama did. His plan is really nothing but talk and talk is cheap. I suspect everything about this guys is, except his suits ... his expansive house ... and whatever luxury items he managed to buy himself through his shady Chicago-politics past.

Source




When is Obama Not Lying?

Barack the messiah has fallen from grace. Here he was, a "racial healer," a hip Hypester straight from Change & Hope, hypnotizing millions of worshippers, a modern William Jennings Bryant dazzling the mobs with the image of an America crucified on a Cross of Gold. Well, recently Obama is just another shifty-eyed, moondancin' pol from the Chicago Machine, playing the race card like Jesse Jackson, even according to The New Yorker. He makes outright deals with corruptocrat Tony Rezko to get his home cheap, and with the Teamsters to buy their election troops in exchange for Federal oversight leniency. He's been lolling in bed with the wild-eyed zealots of ACORN for ten years or more.

The liberal media are down on him today -- but of course they're counting on the Braindead Vote to forget all about that in November when they lift him up again, just in time for the election. They're stuck with O'Bumbler, and he knows it.

So Obama has been lying his head off. Can we count the ways? On Iraq, he's was agin' it before, but he's for it now. On Iran, he's was for it before, and agin' it now. On FISA terrorist surveillance, he just voted for what the hysterical Left has convinced itself to be a Nazi attack on civil rights. On Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he's danced about that one half a dozen times, always ending up on a different side. But liberal Jews will still vote for him, because they hate George W. Bush more than they love reality.

Obama is going to attack John McCain from the right, believe it or not, figuring that the Sucker Vote will fall for it. And he might be right.

So when is Obama not lying? When you catch him unawares. He wasn't lying in his San Francisco sneers for the white voters of Pennsylvania. He wasn't lying when he said everybody (except Obama) should learn Spanish. He wasn't lying when he was riffing about a jazz-based Black identity curriculum to fix all the education problems of the inner city. He wasn't lying when he said that Iran is just a "tiny country" (it isn't) that poses no threat to the US (it does). He was just riffin' free like a rock guitar player in all those cases, just out of the inspiration of the moment, but he wasn't lying.

You have to remember, though, that he's a quick study, and he'll fix all the dumb mistakes in no time. Obama is a rookie who's learning to act like a pro fast -- but he has no depth of knowledge about anything that matters. He's a pure creature of the dogmatic Left -- during his adolescence with Frank Marshall Davis, in his education at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law, in his alliance with ACORN and Bill Ayers, in his two autobiographies, in his Alinsky period as a community agitator -- excuse me, "organizer" -- when he clung to such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright because it served his vast ambitions. Obama is the slickest empty suit the Democrats have had since the early Clintons. That's what they wanted, and that's what they got.

The biggest question is still why Barack Obama is so sure, deep in his heart, that he's qualified to lead this country of 300 million human souls at a time of war and crisis? Why is a rookie Illinois legislator who constantly played footsie with the Chicago Machine, with Black "Liberation" Theology -- the new psychic slavery for inner city Black folks -- and with corruptos like Tony Rezko -- why is this slick street hustler so profoundly convinced that he, and only he, can save this country and the Planet?

That question belongs somewhere in the depths of human pathology. It has something to do with being abandoned by his father and mother in Hawaii and Indonesia, and leaning on old mentor Frank to imagine a messianic future for him. But it's no qualification to wildly overestimate your own experience and abilities so that you are just living in your own rockstar fantasy life. That was the way of Bill and Hillary, the Arkansas country slicksters, who also had liberals by the millions suckered to the gills.

So when is Obama not lying? When he blurts out his real opinions in private. Fortunately he is so undisciplined and overconfident that he'll do that often enough. And Obama's wife Michelle is a genuine PC Commissar, straight from the Russian steppes, who just cannot think outside of the racial resentment box. This is Hillary & Bill, Version 2.0; a trendier paint job but the same old putt-putt under the hood.

Well, the Dems and the media sold us eight years of the Clintons in 1992, culminating in the 9/11 disaster in New York City and the Pentagon. This time the liberal powers are going to try again with a couple of Black slicksters. They will lie and lie and lie and still be covered up by the media. Get ready. And if you want to save your country, go all out for the only choice we have. You don't have to like John McCain --- all you have to do is contemplate the alternative. And pray for your country. Your country will need it.

Source




Obama: Enforcing Immigration Laws is Terrorism

Post below recycled from STACLU. See the original for links and video

Another clear example of stupidity from this idiot, as he speaks to the racist organization "La Raza".

When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn't working, and we need to change it.

First, is the obvious.he doesn't know the difference between ICE and Al Qaeda. When people break the law they should expect consequences, and sometimes that includes raids with probable cause and arrest. This is not terrorism. Second, if he thinks this should be changed, why does he have three years in the Senate and never changed it?

AJ Strata:

Is anyone being beaten or bombed? Is anyone being oppressed because they broke the law? Hell no. And to insult those who are doing what they can to stem the tide of illegals by equating them with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas and others who really do `terrorize' people just shows what a panderer Obama is. I cannot also help but note how much these comments echo those of the Weather Underground from the 60's, who decided to use violence against America. Obama is clearly having a "Bill Ayers moment" here. Stick a fork in this fool - he is toast.

Obama's Glaring Contradictions on Immigration

Barack Obama, speaking Powder Springs, Georgia, Tuesday:

"I agree that immigrants should learn English. But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English - they'll learn English - you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.

Obama, speaking before the National Council of La Raza, Sunday:

We have to finally bring those 12 million people out of the shadows. Yes, they broke the law. And we should not excuse that. We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship - behind those who came here legally. But we cannot - and should not - deport 12 million people. That would turn American into something we're not; something we don't want to be.

Wait. I thought we shouldn't worry about whether immigrants can learn English, because "they'll learn English." Now Obama wants the government to require it for them to stay in the country? Also in Obama's speech to NCLR:

We walked together in those marches for immigration reform.

Odd. That doesn't seem to jibe with this statement in his book, The Audacity of Hope, on page 266:

And, if I'm honest with myself, I must admit that I'm not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments. When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration* demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.

Was Obama experiencing those "nativist sentiments" and "flushes of patriotic resentment" while he was marching with La Raza for immigration reform?

Source




Obama, Shaman

In the patois of punditry, "charismatic" has come to mean little more than "like a rock star." But the striking thing about the charismatic leader is the extent to which his followers regard him as a healer of wounds, an alleviator of pain. In this sense, surely, Senator Barack Obama is charismatic. The carefully knotted ties and the dark, conservatively tailored suits only accentuate the exoticness of his shamanism; he has entered the American psyche not as a hero but as a healer.

The country, or much of it, has longed for such a figure, a man from the once-oppressed race whose rise to power will atone for the sins of slavery and racial stigmatization. But Obama's rhetoric encompasses more than a promise of racial healing. He is not the first politician to argue that politics can redeem us, but in posing as the Adonis who will turn winter into spring, he revives one of the more pernicious political swindles: the belief that a charismatic leader can ordain a civic happy hour and give a people a sense of community that will make them feel less bad.....

Unlike the English Whigs and the American Founders, the modern liberal regards suffering not as an unavoidable element of life but as an aberration to be corrected by up-to-date political, economic, and hygienic arrangements. Rather than acknowledge the limitations of our condition, the liberal continually contrives panaceas that will enable us to transcend it.

Barack Obama, in taking up the part of regenerative healer, is the latest panacea. As a society, Obama says, we are hurting. Our schools are "crumbling." There are "lines in the emergency rooms" of the hospitals, and our corporate culture is "rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed." He points to the millions of Americans who, in struggling with life's difficulties ("high gas bills, insufficient health insurance, and a pension that some bankruptcy court somewhere has rendered unenforceable"), have become bitter and unhappy. Obama finds a scapegoat for the present discontents in politics--a politics, he argues, that breeds "division, and conflict, and cynicism" and that has become a "dead zone" in which "narrow interests vie for advantage and ideological minorities seek to impose their own versions of absolute truth."

The solution, he says, lies in a political reformation. Unless we "begin the process of changing politics and our civic life," we will bequeath to our children "a weaker and more fractured America" than the one we inherited. Hence his mantra, "Change we can believe in." Like the Nicene Creed, Obama's doctrine begins in belief. Credo. Once we believe in the possibility of a transformative politics, "the perfection begins." The selfish politics of the present yields to the selfless politics of the future. We discover that "this nation is more than the sum of its parts--that out of many, we are truly one." So believing, we can replace a politics that breeds division, conflict, and cynicism with a politics that fosters unity and peace. In Obama's "project of national renewal," government can become an expression of "our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity."

Even as Obama suggests that a new communitarianism can heal America's pain and change American lives, radically and for the better, he is careful to anticipate the charge of utopian delusion. Government, he tells people, cannot "solve all their problems." But presumably it can solve most of them.

The danger of Obama's charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure--the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty--but also a change in human nature. Obama's conviction that it is possible to create a beautiful politics, one in which Americans will selflessly pursue a shared vision of the common good, recalls the belief that Dostoyevsky attributed to the nineteenth-century Russian revolutionists: that, come the revolution, "all men will become righteous in one instant." The perfection would begin.

In rejecting the Anglo-American politics of limits, Obama revives a political tradition that derives ultimately from Niccolo Machiavelli. In the Discourses on Livy and The Art of War, Machiavelli argued that it is possible to create a communitarian republic like the one whose outlines he glimpsed in Livy's (highly romanticized) version of Roman history--a polity in which citizens, forsaking their own swinish pursuits, would become happy in the pursuit of a common good. Wise laws, he maintained, would "make citizens love one another." The virtuous res publica of the Romans could be conjured anew..... The "Machiavellian vocabulary," the historian J. G. A. Pocock argued in The Machiavellian Moment, became the "vehicle of a basically hostile perception of early modern capitalism." Machiavelli rejected the commercial ethos (predicated on the pursuit of private interest) that the leading Anglo-American statesmen sought to encourage.

In doing so, he anticipated modernity's childish dream of an anodyne world. His communitarian state is the prototype of the workers' paradises of Marx and Lenin and the Nordic Valhallas of Hitler and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. His influence is evident in both the enlightened despot celebrated by the Continental philosophes and the socialist wizard admired by intellectuals like Edmund Wilson, who hailed Marx as a mix of "Prometheus and Lucifer," a heroically diabolic figure who could redeem the waste land of modern capitalism, the forerunner of Lenin and Stalin, Castro and Mao. The Machiavellian ideal of a communitarian paradise haunts, too, the welfare-state philosophy that Bismarck (for his own cynical reasons) promoted when he established the world's first Wohlfahrtsstaat, a model for socialists in Germany and welfare-state liberals in England and the United States.

In breathing fresh life into Machiavelli's communitarian daydream, Obama revives a style of charismatic leadership that fell out of favor in the United States after the death of FDR. Of the three presidents since 1945 most often regarded as possessing charismatic qualities, the first, Kennedy, was a tax cutter who questioned liberal utopianism when he said that "life is not fair," and the second, Reagan, sought to curb the hubris of New Deal etatisme. The third, Clinton, said that he could feel our pain but retreated from his pledge to heal it when he scrapped a plan to nationalize medicine. Obama, by contrast, is faithful to the old-style charismatics, whose slogans ("social solidarity," for example) he has taken out of cold storage.

Of course, he would not have gotten far had he simply defrosted the ideas of Henry Wallace and George McGovern. Obama's charisma is tuned to the mood of the moment. The charisma of American political leaders has typically rested on images of unflinching strength and masculine authority: Teddy Roosevelt in the North Dakota Badlands; Kennedy, the naval hero whose sexual prowess was acknowledged even in his Secret Service code name ("Lancer"); Reagan, the man on horseback whom the Secret Service called "Rawhide." Obama's charisma, by contrast, is closer to what critic Camille Paglia has identified with today's television talk-show culture, in which admissions of weakness are offered as proof of empathetic qualities. Talk-show culture is occupied with the question of why we feel so bad, when it is our right under the liberal dispensation to feel eternally good. The man who would succeed in such a culture must appear to sympathize with these obscure hurts; he must take pains, ! Paglia writes in Sexual Personae, to appear an "androgyne, the nurturant male or male mother."

Obama, in gaming this culture, has figured out a new way to bottle old wine. He knows that experience has taught Americans to suspect the masculine healer-redeemer who bears collectivist gifts; no one wants to revive the caudillos of the thirties. Studiously avoiding the tough-hombre style of earlier charismatic figures, he phrases his vision in the tranquilizing accents of Oprah-land. His charisma is grounded in empathy rather than authority, confessional candor rather than muscular strength, metrosexual mildness rather than masculine testosterone. His power of sympathetic insight is said to be uncanny: "Everybody who's dealt with him," columnist David Brooks says, "has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them." His two books are written in the empathetic-confessional mode that his most prominent benefactress, Oprah, favors; he is her political healer in roughly the same way that Dr. Phil was once her pop-psychology one. The collectivist dream, Obama instinctively understands, is less scary, more sympathetic, when served up by mama (or by mama in drag)...

Yet if Obama has made redemptive communitarianism attractive in an age of sagging sperm counts, he has done nothing to correct the underlying flaw of the collectivist ideal: its incompatibility with the older morality of limits. The politics of consensus that Obama favors is incompatible with the Founders' adversarial system, which permits those whom he disparages as "ideological minorities" to take stands on principle that, at times, frustrate the national consensus. Obama makes it clear that there is no place, in the politics he advocates, for those "absolutists" who would defy the community. The "ideological core of today's GOP," he writes, is "absolutism, not conservatism," an absolutism driven by those who prize "absolute truth" over "communal values." This commitment to absolute truth, he argues, stands in the way of a politics that can solve our problems and change our lives....

Obama has revived a cruel mirage, but the good news is that the country has defenses against his brand of redemptive politics. Some of these defenses are constitutional, others cultural. The very strength of America's religious ideal of redemption has restrained, though it has not entirely forestalled, the development of alternative secular ideals of redemption. A religiously inspired belief in original sin has made Americans wary of succumbing to the Pelagian notion that a mere mortal, however charismatic, can build the New Jerusalem out of purely secular materials. The country's constitutional system, itself founded on the theory of original sin, has created a perpetual conflict of factions and interests that so far has prevented any single party from imposing a monolithic unity from above, such as Europe's collectivists were able to do....

Meanwhile, the very images of frailty that undermine the masculine leader's pose of strength help the practitioner of the new post-masculine charisma, whose object is to appear human--all too human. Softness has become an asset for candidates who have molded themselves on the exhibitionist model of the Oprah matriarchy.

Hence Obama's spectacular rise. But Obama-mania is bound in the end to disappoint. Not only does it teach us to despise our political system's wise recognition of human imperfection and the pursuit of private happiness; it encourages us to seek for perfection where we will not find it, in politics, in the hero worship of a charismatic shaman, in the speciousness of a secular millennium. Lacking the moral parables that made our ancestors wary of those delusions in which overweening pride is apt to involve us, we pursue false gods and turn away from traditions that really can help us make sense of our condition.

More here

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





15 July, 2008

The birth certificate puzzle gets more interesting still

Was Barack born a bastard? If his father was already married -- which he was -- a marriage in Hawaii between Obama senior and Obama's mother could not legally have taken place.

Michelle Obama had a round table discussion, according to Huffington Post and made a little Freudian slip "His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him."

This is, of course, a departure from the official biography wherein Barry says his parents married when she was 3 months pregnant. Of course, how could a clerk in the Hawaiian clerk's office issue a marriage license for them, when Barack Sr. was already married in Kenya?

In this day and age, however, that in itself is still not enough cause for him to refuse to present a valid birth certificate, other than the obviously photo-shopped, GIIMP fraud posed on his official website.

Source




Barack Shady Obama: The Indonesian Candidate

It seems to me that Obama has no real religious convictions, and used that so-called `christian' `church' in order to advance his career. Politically, the real issue is his character. He lied when he said he has never been a Muslim, and when he said his only connection to Islam was via his grandfather (even then he lied about his grandfathers Islamic bio!)

He also seems to treat voters as if they're all morons (or at least enough of them to win an election). He doesn't believe in old-fashioned things like truth, definitions, borders, or facts. E.g. Many "Muslims" attend Trinity since they preach that one can be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. And it appears that Obama was never actually physically baptized. In other words, besides their bizarre Black Jesus teachings etc, `Trinity' is basically a syncretic cult.

My impression of Obama is that he's lost, confused, pussy-whipped and shady. And what on Earth is his reasoning in keeping his proper birth certificate secret for so long? In his first appearance on the national stage, he began his speech by upping his African roots, and using his family and the circumstances of his birth for political benefit.

Even then, any researcher could have just got a copy of his book and found out that his dad was a criminal, and that his grandfather, whom he called a "nigger", viewed Barack Jr as a pollutant in the black blood stream, and was fierce in his love of Islam and contempt for Christianity.

Once details of Obama's personal life came out, all of a sudden his life is "out-of-bounds." One question concerned his birth. A year ago he refused to release his birth certificate to the media. After months of controversy, he has just released a secondary document (issued 2007-06-06) to a Jihad-supporting website. He knows that even the Obamainstream media would see through this document in a heartbeat. It is clearly not an original birth certificate. Even the font should tell a casual observer that.

A 1961 Hawai'ian birth certificate asks about 20 questions, including such details as whether there are any twins or triplets, the father's birth-place, etc. There are no signatures on the document just released by Obama. It even says on the document that it is invalid if altered, which it clearly has been What about the note in the bottom left-hand corner? The document was revised in November 2001, or the statute was changed then?

It is a document to prove a birth, it is not the original document. Historians would scoff at it. It is a government extract of the original birth certificate filed with the state. It is not a copy of the original document, simply the extracted information printed onto a proprietary paper at the time of the request. Furthermore, it is common practice in many US states to edit such secondary certificates to account for name-changes, sex-changes (ha, that would be a good story!), updated info (such as a newly identified father etc.). In other words, if he has changed his name, he could request that this ID reflect that change.

This just raises more doubts about Obama. What on Earth is his problem? How is it possible that not one reporter has asked him if he is a citizen of any other country?

While Obama has shared his extensive obsessions with Africa and his skin color, no-one has paid attention to reports that he was listed as an Indonesian citizen at school, and that he traveled on an Indonesian passport. Is their any validity to these reports? You'd think inquiring minds would want to know. But no. I guess that would just be expressing far too much curiosity about a virtual unknown who wants to be the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.

If I were in Obama's situation, I would consider it perfectly rational that people would wonder which countries I was a citizen of, considering how convoluted his history is. I think a person should be expected to renounce all foreign citizenships when attempting to become Head of State. I would publicly clarify my complete citizenship status, and would publicly renounce all foreign citizenships before it even became an issue.

Therefore, I'm STUNNED that some reporter hasn't asked Obama the perfectly reasonable questions: "Are you or have you ever been a citizen of Kenya or of Indonesia? Yes or no?"

I have no idea if it's true, but I've read a few blogs claiming that he traveled on his Indonesian father's passport, that he was listed as an Indonesian citizen in school there, and that his Kenyan father registered his birth in Kenya. Certainly all possible. He has traveled to both Kenya and Indonesia as an adult.

He would automatically have been eligible for Indonesian citizenship when his mother married Lolo Soetoro. In fact the government at that time was intensely nationalistic. Soetoro returned there because the government ordered all Indonesians to "return home". Millions of Chinese Indonesians were forced to accept sole Indonesian citizenship or face deportation. (Actually millions were murdered.) Dual citizenship was not accepted! And his mother was more committed to Indonesia than to the US.

None of this would disqualify him from the presidency. Especially considering he was subject to his mother's whims. However, considering all of this, it is perfectly reasonable to ask him about his status as a dual or triple citizen. But that's just me, I guess.

Source




General David Petraeus meeting could herald Barack Obama U-turn on Iraq

Later this month, under conditions of extreme security, Barack Obama will jet into Baghdad for policy discussions with America's most popular general that could change the course of US involvement in Iraq. The long-awaited meeting with General David Petraeus, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, is likely to prove the most dangerous encounter - politically and personally - of a week-long world tour that will carry the Democratic presidential candidate from high-profile meetings in London, Paris, Rome and Berlin to the military bases of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The candidate and the general have for months seemed at loggerheads over troop levels in Iraq, with Obama committed to a rapid withdrawal over the next 18 months and Petraeus arguing that a premature pull-out might endanger the success of the US military "surge" that has produced a sharp drop in violence this year.

Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, has repeatedly taunted the Democratic candidate for not having previously arranged a face-to-face meeting with Petraeus, whom many Americans credit with rescuing the US mission from disaster. A clock on the Republican National Committee's website noted that, as of yesterday, it was 916 days since Obama paid his only previous visit to Iraq. "The trip has already turned into a trap," warned Roger Simon, the chief political columnist of the widely read Politico website. "What is Obama going to learn from it?"

Last month McCain, who has visited Iraq at least eight times since the fall of Saddam Hussein, invited Obama to accompany him on a joint fact-finding mission to Baghdad. The Illinois senator's aides dismissed the offer as a "political stunt", but the issue has become an embarrassment for Obama as the apparent success of the US surge has raised questions about his commitment to a steady withdrawal of one to two combat brigades each month.

"Is Obama the real deal or an eloquent phoney?" asked Morton Kondracke, a conservative columnist. "It would convince me that he was a daring politician if he saw General Petraeus and came back saying . . .`This war was wrong at the start, but now we have to win it . . . we will withdraw - but only under conditions of success'." With Republicans panting at the prospect of an Obama U-turn on a key plank of foreign policy, the Petraeus meeting promises a moment of genuine political theatre that is likely to be absent from the "grip'n'grin" photo opportunities lined up with Gordon Brown, President Nicolas Sarkozy, Pope Benedict and other leaders in Europe.

"I guess the question is, if indeed he's going to Iraq and nothing that he sees will change or impact his decision-making on this, then why is he going?" asked Brian Rogers, a McCain campaign spokesman. "If it's just to make a political point, then it represents the kind of cynical politics that the American people are pretty sick and tired of."

As the chief architect of the anti-terrorist surge, Petraeus is widely admired for reversing the tide of gloom that engulfed America when the original assault on Baghdad gave way to sectarian chaos. Last year he was among candidates for Time magazine's Man of the Year; last week he was confirmed by the US Senate as the next commander-in-chief of Central Command, a promotion that will put him in charge of US forces across a swathe of northern Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Washington analysts are even speculating that Petraeus could become the next Dwight D Eisenhower - the second world war general who remained in Europe to lead Nato then returned to America to be elected president. All this presents a formidable challenge to Obama, who will not want to be seen at odds with such a popular general.

The two have already crossed swords at a congressional hearing, although the senator subsequently defended Petraeus when a left-wing website labelled him "General Betray-Us".

Despite Petraeus's testimony to the Senate that "Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort", Obama has continued to emphasise in speeches and on his website that he wants all combat brigades out of Iraq by the end of next year. That commitment persuaded many Democrats to back him against Hillary Clinton. But earlier this month Obama caused uproar among liberals by hinting that his policies might be "refined".

Obama's supporters argue it makes military and political sense to modify his stance in the light of experience on the ground. The Republicans see his manoeuvring differently: they are portraying him as a cynical flip-flopper. "Why can't Obama keep his story straight?" asked a recent e-mail from the McCain campaign.

Source




With friends like these....

(Note the American flag in the fireplace)



At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to the diligent Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: "The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you've seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?"

Obama (shrugs incredulously): "I have no response to that." Priceless stage direction by Maria.

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: "On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of the The New Yorker, in `The Politics of Fear,' artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." I'm sure Senator Obama is oh-so appreciative for The New Yorker's help.

UPDATE -- Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

Source. Doug Ross has lots of updates and comments.




Obama's Bear Market

Are global investors anticipating a Barack Obama victory in November and the economic storm that his high-tax and antitrade policies would bring? That's a convenient reading of the stock market's recent behavior for Republicans, who have reason for wanting to deflect blame from George W. Bush and his Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. But we do know investors are forward-looking and the slide in the dollar and the fall in the market (despite decent corporate profits) have accelerated at the same pace as Mr. Obama's meteoric political rise over the past nine months.

Now some smart analysts have decided to quantify the relationship. They find a definite inverse correlation between Mr. Obama's probability of winning the election (as measured by the Intrade political futures market) and the ups and downs of the stock market. Intrade provides a trading market where investors can bet on who will win the election - such betting markets have a record of performing better than polls in forecasting election outcomes. University of Michigan Economist Mark Perry was perhaps the first to uncover the relationship between this Obama index and asset values. Radio host and fund manager Jerry Bowyer notes on CNBC.com that investors would have good reason for wanting to flee U.S. markets ahead of an Obama victory. Increases in capital gains and dividend taxes alone will "mean very large additional levies on investors." Mr. Bowyer adds: "Of course, this affects stock prices. It is ludicrous to suggest that adding taxes directly on an asset class would have no effect on its value."

If Messrs. Perry and Bowyer are correct in their analysis, the lousy market in the last few weeks makes sense. Yes, it's partly a result of Ben Bernanke's decision not to raise interest rates. But Senator Obama is now trading as a 34% favorite - that is, bettors believe Mr. Obama is 34% more likely to win in November than Republican John McCain. That implies big tax hikes aimed at the returns on investment in the stock market.

The lesson here for investors is to keep an eye on the betting markets as a leading indicator as to the direction of stocks. "If the political winds keep blowing left," says Dan Clifton of Strategas, an investment advisory firm, "the market is going to tank. In that case, I advise, get out of the market while you still can

Source




Obama overstates his role on immigration

But McCain deserves credit for going out on a limb to forge bipartisan deal

No matter if you are-or are not - voting for presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), he deserves credit for trying to forge a bipartisan deal on immigration in 2005 and 2006 at great personal political risk, a situation unfamiliar to rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). McCain put his comeback presidential bid in peril because of his leadership role with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to find a path for millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S.

The Kennedy-McCain legislation stalled in 2006, because the hardline pro- and anti-immigration forces preferred the status quo to a compromise. Another try in 2007 - in a bill backed by McCain and Obama - also failed.

McCain and Obama, wooing Hispanic voters, each has madeclear in recent appearances before the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the League of United Latino American Citizens a few days ago that he would make immigration reform - and legalizing the status of millions of illegal immigrants - a priority if elected president. I expect each to send the same message at the upcoming National Council of La Raza conference in San Diego, where Obama speaks Sunday and McCain on Monday.

In the meantime, Obama on the campaign trail inflates his leadership role - casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done. Obama "did not absolutely stand out in any way,'' said Margaret Sands Orchowski, the author of "Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria," and a close follower of the legislation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a McCain ally and a key player on immigration, said Obama was around for only a "handful" of meetings and helped destroy a 2007 compromise when he voted for making guest worker visa programs temporary. A permanent guest worker program was to be a trade for a legalization program to cover many illegal immigrants. "When it came time to putting that bill together, he was more of a problem than he was a help. And when it came time to try to get the bill passed, he, in my opinion, broke the agreement we had. He was in the photo op, but he could not execute the hard part of the deal," Graham said," Graham said.

An Obama Senate staffer who did not want his name used disputed whether the sunset provision in the guest worker program killed the bill and said that either Obama or his top immigration staffer were in strategy sessions and that Kennedy, in his speech endorsing Obama vouched for Obama's work on immigration.

In praising Obama for his work on immigration, Kennedy said of Obama, "There is the tireless skill of a senator who was there in the early mornings to help us hammer out a needed compromise on immigration reform, who always saw a way to protect national security and the dignity of people who did not have a vote. For them, he was a voice for justice, a voice for justice. For them, he was a voice for justice."

On Thursday in Fairfax, Va., Obama was asked about his qualifications to understand Latino needs. After noting his work as a community organizer and state senator - he spoke of McCain. "John McCain bucked much of his party and worked with Ted Kennedy, worked with me and others to help shape comprehensive immigration reform legislation in the Senate. And I thought that was courageous of him." Obama, in a sly verbal stroke, made himself an equal on immigration leadership to Kennedy and demoted McCain to a helper.

McCain-after the two failed attempts to pass a comprehensive bill - now wants to satisfy conservatives by first passing a border security and enforcement measure. Obama said that approach means McCain "can't give you confidence that he is going to be serious about that issue. I will be." McCain is not saying enforcement only. He is saying enforcement first.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





14 July, 2008

It wasn't the Bernie Mac Obama thought he knew

I guess lots of readers have heard of the "sexist" joke made by raunchy comedian Bernie Mac at an Obama fundraiser. Some details here. Anything that speaks ill of women is sexist, of course. But you can mock men all you like.

I have not so far seen anyone put up a full version of the joke as told at the Obama function but it is a very old and well-known joke anyhow. Below is the last version of it that I heard. You will see that it actually speaks ill of men too. Or does it? Is it bad to accuse a man of homosexuality? We keep being told that it not:

"A young boy went up to his father and asked him, "Dad, what is the difference between potentially and realistically?" The father thought for a moment, then answered, "Go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. Then ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars. Then ask your brother if he'd sleep with Tom Cruise for a million dollars. Come back and tell me what you learn from that."

So the boy asked his mother and she replied, "Of course I would! I wouldn't pass up an opportunity like that." The boy then asked his sister and she replied, "Oh my God! I would just love to do that! I would be nuts to pass up that opportunity!" The boy then went to his brother and asked, "Would you sleep with Tom Cruise for a million dollars?" "Of course," the brother replied. "Do you know how much a million could buy?"

The boy pondered that, then went back to his dad. His father asked him, "Did you find out the difference between potentially and realistically?" The boy replied, "Yes,dad. Potentially, we're sitting on three million dollars. But realistically, we're living with two sluts and a queer.

Bernie Mac is well-known for profane language so Obama should have known what he was getting when he approved the hiring of the man. But Obama often seems to find out with surprise that people he knew were not what he thought they were.




Cosmic Justice?

By Victor Davis Hanson

Obama's latest-"Osama bin Laden and his top leadership - the people who murdered 3,000 Americans - have a safe haven in north-west Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audio tapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

So spoke Obama. But would he please spell out exactly what he would do instead of the "Bush-McCain approach" to get bin Laden out of Waziristan, and how he would go beyond our present Predator strikes and stealthy incursions? In the past he has advocated open incursions into Pakistan ("The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan." / "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."); does he still advocate that?

Unmentioned is that in 1998 (during the golden Clintonian years of diplomacy) Pakistan went nuclear. That fact and its fragile governments might explain why bin Laden hasn't been bombed or taken through an overt American invasion. And when Obama says "We would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice but world justice down on him" I hope he's not thinking of something like the Milosevic experience, in which the mass murderer died unconvicted after four years of captivity and an OJ-like circus at the World Court at The Hague.

Source




Is Obama pulling 'The Big Fade?'

The new Newsweek poll that came out yesterday showed Obama's numbers dropping like a stone. This is just the latest in a series of surveys which show that despite factors that would ordinarily make this a Democratic year, Barack Obama cannot shake his challenger John McCain. The Newsweek numbers are a surprise. Last month, Obama topped McCain by double digits. This month, the two candidates are virtually tied within the margin for error at 44-41 for Obama.

Both daily tracking polls - Gallup and Rasmussen - continue to show a tight race with Obama up 4 and 2 points respectively in those surveys.

Beyond the raw numbers is the realization that the man with all the advantages in the race cannot top 50%. Not only is that number a psychological barrier it is also indicative of raw strength. Obama doesn't have it. And as long as McCain can hold Obama under that magic number, the perception will grow that Obama could very well lose to the Republican challenger.

Would this change the convention dynamics? Not likely. Obama's delegates will not bolt their candidate and the Superdelegates - who could switch allegiances to Hillary or some other candidate - don't appear to be in a mood yet to revolt against the party standard bearer.

This leaves the Democrats a nervous bunch. Until Obama starts showing better in the face of all these advantages for the Democrats, the danger will exist that by the time the convention rolls around, the party may have found it bought itself a pig in a poke.

Source




Obama's Liberal Shock Troops

By JOHN FUND

While he is a skilled candidate, Barack Obama's ability to surprise, stun and sweep over the vaunted Clinton Machine to capture the Democratic nomination was rooted in his background as a community organizer. He's now turning those skills to the general election. But liberals aren't just on the march on the presidential level. This year, liberal activists are spending parts of the fortunes of their wealthy donors to transform politics at the state and local level.

In 2005, billionaire investor George Soros convened a group of 70 super-rich liberal donors in Phoenix to evaluate why their efforts to defeat President Bush had failed. One conclusion was that they needed to step up their long-term efforts to dominate key battleground states. The donors formed a group called Democracy Alliance to make grants in four areas: media, ideas, leadership and civic engagement. Since then, Democracy Alliance partners have donated over $100 million to key progressive organizations.

Take Colorado, which has voted Republican for president in nine of the last 10 presidential elections. But in 2006, Colorado elected a Democratic governor and legislature for the first time in over 30 years. Denver will be the site for the party's 2008 presidential convention. Polls show Barack Obama would carry the state today. This hasn't happened by chance. The Democracy Alliance poured money into Colorado to make it a proving ground for how progressives can take over a state.

Offshoots of leading liberal national groups were set up including Colorado Media Matters in 2006, to correct "conservative misinformation" in the media. Ethics Watch, a group modeled after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, was started and proceeded to file a flurry of complaints over alleged campaign finance violations -- while refusing to name its own donors.

Western Progress, a think tank to advance "progressive solutions," opened its doors as did the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, one of 29 such groups around the country. Then there's Colorado Confidential, a project of The Center for Independent Media, which subsidized liberal bloggers. CIM has set up similar ventures in Iowa, Minnesota and Michigan, with funding from groups such as the Service Employees International Union, and George Soros's Open Society Institute.

On the electoral front, Progressive Majority Colorado has set up seven offices with the goal of "recruiting progressive leaders" as candidates. America Votes-Colorado promises to coordinate the largest voter mobilization effort in the state's history. "All of this activity has flown under the radar," says Ed Morrissey of the conservative blog Captain's Quarters. "But efforts to change the political ground game may have real long-term consequences."

More audaciously, in Michigan, signatures have been filed to put a sweeping reorganization of state government on this November's ballot. The measure, pushed by a group called "Reform Michigan Government Now," contains at least 36 distinct provisions that take up a dozen pages of fine type. "It's a Trojan Horse dressed up as My Friend Flicka," says Lawrence Reed, president of the conservative Mackinac Center.

In a recession-wracked state seething with public anger at elected officials, the measure hits populist notes by cutting the size of the legislature and reducing the salaries of top officeholders. But on voting, it would mandate no-excuse-needed absentee voting -- despite a long history of vote-fraud scandals involving absentee votes in Detroit and other cities. A redistricting commission would be set up to reshape political boundaries, but state courts would be barred from reviewing any plans it draws up. (Only federal courts could review the boundaries.) Voters would also be barred from rejecting or amending the commission's work by initiative.

There is also a direct attack on the judiciary. The initiative reduces the state's Supreme Court to five members, down from seven, and the state's Court of Appeals to 20 judges, down from 28. Saving money appears not to be the motive: Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm could appoint 10 newly created circuit court judges. The net result would be that conservatives would lose control of the state Supreme Court, because the two justices who would be removed would be the last two appointed by GOP Gov. John Engler. Of the eight appeals court judgeships that would be eliminated, six are now held by people with GOP backgrounds. "It's a strange reform that benefits one political party exclusively at all three levels of the judiciary," observes Mr. Reed. "Is the intent that the judiciary become just another arm of one of the political parties?"

The financing for the initiative is mysterious and will not be publicly revealed until campaign finance reports are due in late September or early October. But the measure appears to be a Democratic effort. The campaign is being quarterbacked by a former Democratic state legislative leader, and Mark Brewer, the state's Democratic Party chair, says his party supports the measure.

Should Mr. Obama be elected, he would become not just the head of the Democratic Party but also the inspiration for a large number of liberal groups. Some of them would no doubt lobby him to hand out taxpayer grants and contracts for their nonpolitical "community" efforts.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has extensive connections with the granddaddy of activist groups, Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which has gotten millions in government grants for its low-income housing programs. In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort. He later became a trainer for the group, as well as its lawyer in election law cases.

Acorn's political arm has endorsed Mr. Obama while its "voter education" arm has pledged to spend $35 million to register people this fall -- despite a history of vote fraud scandals that have led to guilty pleas by many Acorn employees.

The housing bill now before Congress would set up a slush fund for community organizations such as Acorn. But Acorn has gone quiet in its lobbying for the bill this week with the news that one of its employees -- the brother of Acorn founder Wade Rathke -- had stolen nearly $1 million from the group. Mr. Rathke decided not to alert law enforcement or the organization's board, and kept his brother employed at Acorn until last month. "Is this the kind of group we want getting taxpayer money?" asks Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.)

But Acorn may play, along with other liberal groups, a leading role in electing Mr. Obama. Such groups deserve a closer look now, before their influence and possibly their clout grow dramatically after the November election.

Source




Obama Won't Commit to Military Town Hall

Guess Obama will be otherwise preoccupied that night:

A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.

CBS has agreed to broadcast the meeting live from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Aug. 11. The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not agreed to participate. "Senator Obama strongly supports America's veterans and military families and has worked hard on their behalf in the Senate," said Phillip Carter, director of Mr. Obama's veterans effort and an Iraq war veteran. "While we unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed, Senator Obama looks forward to continuing the dialogue he's been having throughout the country with veterans on how we can better serve our men and women in uniform as they serve us."

Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out. "I'm having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why," said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. "We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates."

The organizers released details about the event in hopes that it would pressure the Obama campaign to agree to the event. "This was a decision that was made with tremendous difficulty, to publicize it," Ms. Picard said. "We were at a point where we had no other option. We got the impression that they could talk us to November."

Three thoughts come to mind: (1) When Obama said he didn't want to be more specific about military benefits, he really was serious. (2) Obama says he has to earn the trust of the men and women in uniform, but here's his chance and he's passing it up. (3) So the list of people Obama would now meet with includes Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Chavez, but no town hall with U.S. soldiers.

Source




Catholics, Abortion & Sen. Obama

In my latest piece at Pajamas Media, I look at a recent Wall Street Journal piece exploring the means by which Catholics justify a vote for Barack Obama, whose NARAL rating (his recent musings on abortion notwithstanding) is 100%. The WSJ reports that the Obama Catholics justify voting for him in good conscience, despite his abortion record, because he is "so good on other issues" of import to Catholics, like war, torture, social justice, etc. As I observe at PJM:

On the surface, that argument seems reasonable - so reasonable, in fact, that the ardently pro-life Archbishop Charles Chaput, of Denver, writes of forming his own conscience in just such a way in 1976: "I knew Carter was wrong in his views about Roe and soft toward permissive abortion. But even as a priest, I justified working for him because.he was right on so many more of the "Catholic" issues than his opponent seemed to be. The moral calculus looked easy."

The moral calculus does look easy until one considers that war, torture, the death penalty, poverty, racism, and even the excesses of capitalism - those evils so well defined in Catholic social teaching, and of concern to Catholics of all political persuasions - are fully present in the act of abortion.

Consider:

War is a struggle between two evolving powers over who will have dominance; whether just or unjust, it involves the murder of the innocent and the disruption of families. War introduces pain, fire, violence, savagery and torture into societies.

Abortion is a struggle between two evolving powers over who will have dominance; whether "justified" or not, it involves the murder of the innocent and the disruption of families. A vacuum abortion, saline abortion or a D&C introduces pain, fire, and a limb-shredding, relentless violence deep into the very being of a woman's body, within her very womb. A partial birth abortion, which involves inserting a scissor into the base of the skull of a partially delivered fetus, then suctioning out its brain before fully withdrawing the fetus from the birth canal, embodies the sort of savagery and real torture which is the most abhorrent part of any war.

The death penalty is a legal execution of an individual judged guilty of heinous acts against the larger society; convicts are sometimes discovered to have been innocent of the charges made against them only after their lives have been taken. Many consider even the most "humane" means of execution to be cruel and inhuman, and even when the convict is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, it may be well-argued that killing a murderer does not bring back the victim and that "two wrongs do not make a right."

In an abortion, the fetus is as subject to the death penalty as anyone ever so ordered by a jury; the fetus is always innocent. Even the most "humane" means of abortion - whatever that might be - involves cruel and inhuman measures. And even if the fetus - in its innocence - is the product of a violent and "guilty" conception, it may be well-argued that one merciless violation cannot be healed by a second - equally merciless - violation and that "two wrongs do not make a right."

It goes on like that for some length. We've all been struggling about abortion for decades - once upon a time I was a pro-choice liberal Catholic, myself, so I know the struggle. As I wrote:

A Catholic conscience is a complex thing that must rely on more than bumper stickers and impassioned rhetoric.

After all this time, we should be able to discuss abortion fearlessly. Perhaps we need some new perspectives. The whole point of writing and debate is to allow fresh perspectives into stale ideas.and nothing in America is as stale as the back-and-forth on abortion.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





13 July, 2008

How Little Income You Need For Obama To Think You're Undertaxed

FactCheck.org says McCain and his allies are being unfair when they say Obama supports raising taxes on those who make as little as $32,000. They're referring to Obama's vote for a budget resolution that would have raised taxes on those in the 25 percent tax bracket. (It was part of repealing the Bush tax cuts.)

The FactCheck statement contends that the standard deduction and personal exemptions would leave an individual who made $32,000 in a year with significantly less than that in taxable income, taking them out of the the 25 percent bracket. "So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income," probably isn't as helpful as Team Obama would like; $41,500 doesn't really fit many people's definitions of rich. And Doug Holtz-Eakin, senior policy advisor to the McCain campaign, has a point when he responds:

FactCheck.org concluded, Barack Obama's vote on the FY 2009 resolution "bears no relation to [his] proposed economic plan." That point goes to the heart of the problem with Barack Obama. His words on the campaign trail do not match the actions he has taken. He tells the American people one thing but has a record that is quite different.

The Obama campaign has also sought to downplay the importance of the vote. His chief economic adviser said that this was just "some Senate vote." If the vote truly had no meaning, why didn't he vote against it? It would have been a principled vote that rejected the notion that we should tax individuals earning as little as $32,000 a year.

Really, the 25 percent tax bracket starts this year at $32,550 and goes up to $78,850 (before the standard deductions). A married couple filing jointly, it starts at $65,100 - i.e., a couple where each spouse makes $32,550. Is the problem in this country really that those at this income level are undertaxed?

Obama has never laid out what the tax rates would be for each bracket under his tax plan, instead pledging he would never raise taxes on those making less than $250,000.

Fact check offers an adamant statement from Obama from June 12: "If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period. Not income tax, not payroll tax, not capital gains tax, not any of your taxes. And chances are you will get a tax cut."

He sounds pretty certain. About as certain as his spokesman Bill Burton sounded on October 24, 2007, when he said, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Source




Barack Obama Isn't Making Sense

Maybe Barack Obama's feints to the right will benefit him politically, maybe they'll offend liberals who believed he really was a different kind of politician. Maybe the swing voters Obama is wooing with his less-liberal rhetoric are no longer paying attention by the time he lurches back to the left.

But one thing is clear: Obama isn't as deep a policy thinker as his admirers pretend. Many of his issue positions, evolving and otherwise, scarcely make sense. Take for example his recent pronouncements on official English initiatives. Plenty of voters, including sensible moderate swing voters and culturally conservative Democrats, think bilingual education is an ineffectual boondoggle and that the government should conduct its business in English. Many La Raza-style interest groups and multicultural liberals feel differently. Rather than alienate either constituency, Obama spewed incoherent mush:

You know, I don't understand when people are going around worrying about, "We need to have English- only." They want to pass a law, "We want English-only."

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], "Merci beaucoup."

Sounds reasonable enough to a soccer mom who wants her child to be competitive in the global economy, right? Except that the "English-only" policies Obama is condemning have nothing to do eliminating foreign-language instruction in public schools. There are no Minutemen patrolling high school hallways and reporting Mrs. Smith's French class. The actual debate has much more to do with whether immigrants and their children will learn English, as Obama purports to favor.

Many bilingual education programs are premised on the idea that a child must become proficient in his native tongue to learn a new language. Critics argue that such programs deny children an opportunity to develop English skills at a young age when doing so is easiest. As John J. Miller put it, "One of the sad results of bilingual education is that it often leaves kids semi-literate in two languages and fluent in none."

Yet at least this exercise in sloppy centrism was superficially plausible. Less so was Obama's attempt to reconcile contradictory statements on abortion policy. He told Relevant, a Christian magazine, that he did not believe "mental distress" was a valid exception to state late-term abortion bans:

I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

Except that Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, defines a woman's health as "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." The Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama co-sponsors and has promised to sign into law as president, upholds this standard and requires mental-health exceptions to late-term abortion bans. So then Obama backtracked:

My only point is this -- historically I have been a strong believer in a women's right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is...I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn't feel good then that is an exception. That's never been the case.

I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, it can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that is important to emphasize and understand.

Except there is no known "feeling blue" provision in American abortion jurisprudence. Martin Haskell, the inventor of partial-birth abortion, told the American Medical News in 1993 that 80 percent of the later-term abortions he performed were "purely elective."

Obama, a former constitutional law instructor, had similar difficulty expressing a coherent position on the Second Amendment. In response to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the District of Columbia's handgun ban, Obama said: "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view..."

Except that Obama had previously endorsed the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the very same policy the Supreme Court was finding unconstitutional. This suggests that there is at least some distance between Obama's interpretation of the Second Amendment and the Court's.

In one of his few non-rhetorical differences with the netroots, Obama voted to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with many provisions civil libertarians oppose. He tried to reassure his supporters by promising to "work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove" immunity for telecom companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's surveillance program. And he did vote for an amendment that would strip such immunity.

Except that he did so once it became clear the legislation would pass without the amendment. Obama had once vowed to filibuster any FISA legislation that gave immunity to the telecom companies. Instead he voted for such legislation.

Obama may be a political genius, but logically consistent policymaking doesn't seem to be his strong suit. Either that or he just doesn't think the voters are very bright.

Source




Obama Praises Foul-Mouthed Rapper

Fans of Lil' Wayne probably thought it was great when Barack Obama praised the rapper at a campaign event, but just check out some of his lyrics. From the Swampland.

Take the lyrics of Lollipop, the aforementioned song which, if you have not yet heard on the radio, then your children certainly have. As is the habit of most modern Hip Hop, it is a song of sexual conquest, with Lil' Wayne boasting of his ability to attract women and enjoy their company. Not so interesting, you think? Check out this set of lyrical couplets:

I get her on top / She drop it like it's hot

And when I'm at the bottom / She Hillary Rodham

In the song, these lines are meant as a compliment both to the girl in his bed and the former presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose take-charge, ready-from-day-one attitude the artist apparently admires. Of course, the precise context of the compliment is insulting to millions of Americans, but then the Lil' Wayne oeuvre is not exactly sensitive to such considerations. It makes you wonder if Obama has actually ever listened to the rapper or was just trying to portray himself as hip.

Source




Obama's $100,000 garden grant wasted

He vowed to 'work tirelessly' to build an oasis for Englewood. It never happened

As a state senator, Barack Obama gave $100,000 in state money to a campaign volunteer who failed to deliver on a plan to create a botanic garden in one of Chicago's most blighted neighborhoods. Obama -- who was running for Congress when he announced the project in 2000 -- said the green space in Englewood would build ''a sense of neighborhood pride." Instead, what was supposed to be a six-block stretch of trees and paths is now a field of unfulfilled dreams, strewn with weeds, garbage and broken pavement.

Kenny B. Smith, whose nonprofit group got the money, said it was spent legitimately, mostly on underground site preparation. But he admitted Thursday that the garden is a lost cause because other government money never came through. "We gave up," said Smith, who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association. "It was a losing battle."

Smith -- an early Obama supporter who gave $550 to his state and congressional campaigns -- said he gave his paperwork documenting the work to a state agency and no longer has it. A Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity spokeswoman said officials would look into the matter.

Smith blamed the site's current poor condition on construction material dumped there during the state's recent reconstruction of the Dan Ryan Expy. But a reporter walked the site last week with a landscape architect from the Illinois Green Industry Association who found no evidence of the work Smith cited. The only major changes since 2000: A gazebo was added, and some trees were cut down.

Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said through a spokesman he wasn't responsible for monitoring the work; the staffs of Gov. Blagojevich and former Gov. George Ryan were. "It is clear that Englewood residents have not been able to benefit from a completed community garden," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said. "Sen. Obama will . . . do everything he can to ensure that the Englewood community gets the resources it needs to provide its residents with a livable neighborhood."

On Jan. 14, 2000, Obama and Smith announced the Englewood Beautification Plan at Englewood High School. Obama promised to help raise $1.1 million. He was running then to unseat U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, but lost in the Democratic primary. The beautification project, planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place, was outside Obama's state Senate district but within the congressional district. "I will work tirelessly in Springfield and in Chicago to raise public and private dollars to fund this worthy endeavor," Obama said then.

In 2001, at Obama's direction, a $100,000 Illinois FIRST grant went to Smith's group. The garden site was part of Rosewood Estates, an affordable-housing development being built by the group, whose unpaid board chairman was Brian Washington, a Sun-Times security guard.

Plans called for more than 50 homes, but only a dozen were built, Smith said. The remaining $1 million for the botanic garden was never raised. Now, Smith said he's trying to get city leaders to let him use the land and other vacant lots to build about 30 new homes in Englewood.

Source




Judicial Watch Files Senate, FEC Complaints against Barack Obama Over Questionable Mortgage Loan

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below-market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.

According to the Judicial Watch complaints, the Illinois Senator reportedly received a home loan of $1.32 million at a rate of 5.625 percent, although the average going rate on that day according to two different surveys was between 5.93 and 6 percent. Unlike what was reportedly available for the general consumer, this special below-market "super super jumbo" loan was secured without an origination fee or discount points. (Questions about the mortgage were first raised by The Washington Post.)

"It appears that due to his position as a United States Senator, Barack Obama received improper special treatment from Northern Trust resulting in an illicit 'gift' which has a value of almost $125,000 in interest savings," Judicial Watch wrote in its U.S. Senate ethics complaint. "Judicial Watch therefore respectfully requests a full investigation into whether the special Northern Trust mortgage received by Senator Barack Obama constitutes a gift that is prohibited by Senate ethics rules." In its FEC complaint, Judicial Watch also calls for a full FEC investigation into whether the special mortgage is a disguised and illegal corporate campaign contribution to Senator Obama.

As Judicial Watch notes in both complaints, Northern Trust has supported Barack Obama's political campaigns for elected office since 1990. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, cited by The Washington Post, Northern Trust employees have donated $71,000. The Northern Trust political action committee gave $1,250 to Senator Obama's 2004 campaign for the United States Senate.

Northern Trust Vice President John O'Connell essentially admitted the company provided Obama preferential loan terms because of his position in the U.S. Senate. "A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," O'Connell told The Washington Post [emphasis added]. "This was a business proposition for us."

"Americans ought to be suspicious when a United States Senator such as Barack Obama, obtains a sweetheart mortgage deal," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have serious concerns that Senator Obama's mortgage may have violated the law and Senate ethics rules."

Source




Larry Sinclair, Obama's bad penny

You might recall Larry Sinclair was the person who claimed to have smoked crack and had gay sex with Obama back in 1999. The allegation surfaced back in January 2008 via an infamous YouTube video. At the time it was blown off as a crank who was just out to smear "The Lightworker", probably put up to it by the Clintons, who are not exactly squeamish about playing dirty. Remember Vince Foster's little walk in the park? Well, that bad penny just won't go away. The story refuses to die, and in fact keeps growing and expanding. According to a sworn affidavit signed by Larry Sinclair, Sinclair contacted Obama's campaign back in September 2007 concerning Obama's statement concerning when he had last used crack cocaine. Sinclair claimed that he felt that it was important that the voters know about Obama's more recent cocaine use. Sinclair wanted Obama to publically admit that he had used cocaine as recently as 1999.

Sinclair claimed that he had made a number of calls that were not returned, then in October 2007, A man identifying himself as Mr. Young called him back and interrogated Sinclair as to who he had told about the encounter and why he had not mentioned the sex angle. Since Sinclair claims to have not mentioned the sex and that Mr Young was the first to broach the subject, this would tend to indicate that Mr Young was well aware of what had happened in that Limo. a couple weeks later, Sinclair claims that Mr Young called back, and through his tone and content of the conversation, he claims it became clear to him that Mr. Young was not in fact a campaign staffer, but was in fact an intimate of Obama.

Further, by this time, Sinclair had moved to Delaware and had not told the Obama Campaign where he had moved to, or how he could be reached, but yet they found him anyway, which indicates that he was the subject of some form of surveillance or investigation, which would seem reasonable given the circumstances. A week or so later he claims to have received a text message from Mr. Young stating that he was intimate with Obama and that he, Obama and Obama's pastor (that would be the infamous Jeremiah Wright) were discussing how to disclose the drug use and that he wanted to ensure that no mention of the incident had been made or would be made to anyone. Again in November another text message to yet a different undisclosed cell number in yet another state (Minnesota this time) that Obama was going to disclose his drug use and that there was no reason for Sinclair to disclose anything to anyone. By December, it was clear that Obama was not going to disclose anything to anyone and that Mr Young was merely stringing him along to milk him for information, so Sinclair decided to go public. Hence the Youtube video.

Mr Young turns out to be one Donald Young, an openly gay Choir director at Trinity United Church, and fourth grade math teacher. On December 23, Mr. Young was murdered in his home, and his killer has not been found. Mr. Young was not the only gay black victim of murder in Chicago, There were two other gay men that were murdered within days of each other. All three died within a 40 day period.

Now, this is starting to sound really fishy. It sounds to me like someone is going around and cleaning up behind Obama. It would appear that Larry Sinclair may have thrown a wrench into the works by making his video and publishing it online. Doing so, at the time seemed amateurish and cheezy, but Sinclair may very well have saved his life by doing so.

Now things really start to get strange. In June, Sinclair was scheduled to appear in the National Press Club and give a press conference concerning the Chicago PD questioning him back in April about his contacts with Donald Young as part of his murder investigation. Apparently Joseph Biden III, Attorney General of Delaware, and son of Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware, had sworn out an arrest warrant for an alleged case of a motel room paid for with counterfeit money orders. Sinclair claims to never having paid for a single day, much less two weeks worth of room rental at a Rodeway Inn with money orders counterfeit or not. Whether he did or not, I have no way of knowing, but the Wilmington De Police had investigated it back in October and determined he had committed no crime.

My takeaway from all this is that Obama is bisexual (which means that he is actually in a transition phase and has not personally accepted being gay, so he convinces himself he is still straight, despite engaging in gay sex.) and has had sexual relations with at least two, and possibly more, men. Someone has been killing these men to eliminate any possibility that Obama could be compromised or blackmailed.

Now, were the deaths ordered by Obama? That is an open question. Obama has been mixed up in Chicago mob politics for some time and is buddies with Rezko. It is entirely possible that the mob has decided that they have too much money and effort tied up in getting the first Chicago mob boss elected president to let allegations of gay sex and drugs derail things, so they have decided to eliminate the accusers, and Obama may merely be a figurehead, powerless to control the mob machine running his campaign, or maybe not. Maybe he really wants the power and will do anything to get it. At this point it's hard to tell who is really driving that bus that everybody has been thrown under, but it is getting mighty crowded under there.

More here

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





12 July, 2008

Obama has been here before

The election this year is between two very different political personalities. John McCain is a moderate conservative and war hero with a solid political record but limited media skills (he still has trouble using a teleprompter) and no excess of charisma. Barack Obama is a young, very charismatic newcomer with virtually no political record but great oratorical talent who promises profound change.

This is very reminiscent of the election of 1896, when William McKinley ran against William Jennings Bryan. McKinley too was a genuine war hero (distinguished service in the Civil War) who then entered politics. He served several terms in the House and became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1891 he was elected governor of Ohio.

His opponent's political resume was a lot thinner, with only two back-bencher terms in the House. But at the Democratic convention of 1896, Bryan electrified the crowd with his "Cross of Gold" speech. It instantly became an American classic and propelled him to the nomination at just 36 years old, by far the youngest man ever nominated by a major party. Like Mr. Obama, Bryan promised a new politics aimed to benefit the common man, not the capitalists.

He launched the country's first whistle-stop campaign, giving more than 500 speeches around the country. And at first it worked. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had made its debut on May 26 of that year at 40.94, had lost 30% by August, when it stood at 28.48. But the Republicans fought back, utilizing new advertising techniques, and painted Bryan as someone whose populist ideas would wreck the American economy. The Dow began to recover as McKinley picked up support in northern industrial cities, and among ethnic workers who had been previously Democratic. In the end he won with 51% of the popular vote against 47%.

So 1896 turned out to be a watershed election, alright. By rejecting the candidate who advocated change for the candidate who promised moderate conservatism, it made the Republicans the dominant party until 1932.

More here




Obama's GOP models

By KARL ROVE

For a campaign that says it wants to end the politics of the Bush-Cheney years, the Obama for President effort has cribbed an awful lot from the Bush-Cheney playbooks of 2000 and 2004. For starters, Barack Obama's manager admitted to the New York Times that he wanted an "army of persuasion" modeled explicitly on the massive Bush neighbor-to-neighbor "Victory Committee" of '00 and '04. Those efforts deployed millions of volunteers to register, persuade and get-out-the-vote.

Sen. Obama's organizational emphasis wisely avoids the Democratic mistake of 2000, when Donna Brazille's plea for a stronger grassroots focus was ignored by the Gore high command. It also avoids the mistake of 2004, when Democrats outsourced their ground game to George Soros's 527 organizations. The latter effort paid at least $76 million to more than 45,000 canvassers - many hired from temp agencies - to register and turn out voters. It was the wrong model: Undecideds are more likely to be influenced by those in their social network than an anonymous, low-wage campaign worker.

Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama has harnessed the Internet for persuasion, communication and self-directed organization. A Bush campaign secret weapon in 2004 was nearly 7.5 million email addresses of supporters, 1.5 million of them volunteers. Some volunteers ran "virtual precincts," using the Web to register, persuade and organize family and friends around the country. Technology has opened even more possibilities for Mr. Obama today.

The Obama campaign is trying to catch up with the GOP's "microtargeting" program, which uses powerful analytical tools and extensive household consumer information to focus on prospects for conversion and extra turnout help. Another Obama adaptation of a 2004 Bush campaign technique is a stepped-up, rapid response effort. Charges do not go unanswered, the campaign stays relentlessly on the offense, using every channel of communication.

The Obama campaign has also copied the Bush strategy of broadening the general election map. In 2000, the Bush effort targeted not just the traditional battlegrounds, but also West Virginia (last won by the GOP in an open race for the presidency in 1928), Tennessee (Al Gore's home), Arkansas (Bill Clinton's home), Washington and Oregon.

Hoping for a breakthrough somewhere, Mr. Obama also wants to force John McCain to play defense. So in addition to traditional battleground states, he's running TV ads and organizing in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota. And where Mr. Bush targeted Latinos, African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and education voters to narrow Democratic margins, Mr. Obama is going after evangelicals, veterans and values voters with ads and outreach to trim the GOP's margin.

There are problems, however. Mr. Obama's people admit they want to sucker Mr. McCain into spending money. To be successful, a bluff must be credible. In places like Nebraska and North Dakota, Mr. Obama can't rely on local issues - like Mr. Bush did with coal in West Virginia in 2000 - to unexpectedly win a critical state. Organization alone won't suffice. And putting Obama dollars into Texas, for example, to help win five state House seats may simply cause Texan Republicans - not Mr. McCain - to raise money and work harder to counter.

Democrats don't have the same large volunteer pool the GOP does with its Federated GOP Women, College and Young Republicans, and local party committees. In the primaries, Mr. Obama instead moved hordes of volunteers from state to state. It was a brilliant tactic, but Nov. 4 is different. The volunteers adequate for primaries held over five months will simply not be enough to compete in 51 separate elections (all 50 states plus the District of Columbia) all on one day.

Mr. Obama's biggest problem is that when it comes to substance, he's following the playbook of a Republican other than George W. Bush. In 2000, Mr. Bush won the general election on the same themes and positions as in the primaries, including compassionate conservatism, the faith-based initiative, tax cuts and Social Security reform. There was no repudiation of past positions, no chameleon-like shifts in positions.

Instead of consistency, Mr. Obama has followed Richard Nixon's advice, to cater to his party's extreme in the primaries and then move aggressively to the middle for the fall.

In the primary, Mr. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months, called the D.C. gun ban constitutional, backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program, opposed welfare reform, pledged to renegotiate Nafta, disavowed free trade and was strongly against the death penalty in all cases. But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.

By taking Nixon's advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate's credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.

Source




Will Obama give power to the '60s Left?

How perfect it was that while running for president in 2008, the 40th anniversary of "1968," Barack Obama should denounce the 1960s. His candidacy and his times are bland compared to what was happening then, or so everyone thought. The year 1968 had a torrent of cataclysmic political events, each of which might have destabilized any other year.

We just passed Robert Kennedy's assassination, and before that the Paris student riots in May 1968. Up next month, the Democratic convention in Chicago - with its pitched battles in Grant Park between the cops and antiwar demonstrators, the anti-Vietnam protests inside the hall, Mayor Richard Daley on home TVs screaming hysterically at Sen. Abraham Ribicoff.

Thus spake Sen. Barack Obama, b. 1961: "There is no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Sen. Clinton cannot deliver on. And part of it is generational. Sen. Clinton and others, they have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. And it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

Sen. Clinton "and others" would include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, various Senate and House Committee chairmen, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, and much of the Congressional Black Caucus whose political formation started and stopped in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Insofar as many of the people running Sen. Obama's own party have spent the past four decades playing the Hatfields to the conservative McCoys, can one truly say he has freed himself from those times? As someone might have said back then, sort of.

A phrase born in the '70s out of the feminist movement held that "the personal is political." As an epigram for the age, she got that right. Back then, it seemed to make sense. Neither Barack Obama nor others of his generation can fathom the fantastic emotional intensity of 1968. It was a year submerged in physical and emotional violence. After the Martin Luther King assassination in April, many American cities erupted in violence and arson, most notably Washington, D.C. The smash-face antiwar movement screamed alongside.

For the then-young men and women of the liberal left, politics became, and remained, unapologetically personal. The falling away of restraint on personal behavior required that the new ethos had to be codified by politics and the courts. Fighting for the right to hang erotic art in a Cincinnati museum became their idea of crucial struggle. Their counterparts on the right were appalled. The point is that for both sides, 1968 was a political furnace; it forged belief systems that drive many in politics today, especially Democrats.

Hillary Clinton came out of this intensely fought milieu. Barack Obama did not. When Obama criticized the fights born back in the '60s, he was severing the personal from the political. He is personally very different from these people. (I wouldn't say this about Michelle Obama.)

What has struck me most about Obama's personality is that it conveys nearly no sense of irony. Hillary in stump speeches would respond to applause for her tales of woe by bobbing her head and forming her mouth into a knowing smirk. Obama doesn't do "knowingness." He's earnest and emotionally quiet. Making un-ironic earnestness seem charismatic is hard, but he's doing it.

His recent flip-flops on guns, the death penalty and Iraq suggest he is less inclined to belief-based '60s style activism than to pragmatic opportunism. The old school wanted to triumph. He wants to succeed.

The Democratic bloggers, truly a tribe descended from 1968, hate Obama's easeful flexibility. But it explains in part how he is slipping by with a standard liberal policy-set no one seems to notice. A lot of moderate Democrats and younger voters, who consider themselves mainly achievers rather than activists, are OK with this. They would rather vote for a flexible opportunist than a committed man of the left. So that's what they're getting.

If he wins, though, the country would have a president who lacks personal and political clarity. This would give the politics of hope new meaning. What precisely do voters think they're getting? You don't have to wait for an answer. It will be supplied in January by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the House caucus and many others who turned professional after the '60s and know what to do with a big governing majority in Congress.

For Democrats who think 1968 was yesterday, the next four look good: Obama's personality produces a win (proving the personal remains political), and the win produces traditional party goals on universal health insurance, tax levels and, not least, the more modest American footprint in the world they have sought since the charismatic Jack Kennedy got the country into Vietnam. Looks like the sunshine [for the '60s Left] may be coming back.

Source




Some REAL centrist ideas for Obama

Some liberals fret that Barack Obama is tacking to the center after his acquiescence to the Supreme Court's repeal of Washington's handgun law, his shift on telephone company immunity for cooperating with wiretaps, and his call for more faith-based social programs. But this is just the beginning. The logic of the race will shortly lead Sen. Obama to buck bigger liberal pieties on core priorities like schools, taxes and health care in order to win.

In a sense this is overdue. For all the talk about reaching out to Republicans and independents, Mr. Obama's proposals have been far less challenging to conventional liberal thinking than were Bill Clinton's in 1992 -- when Mr. Clinton forced Democrats to overhaul their approach to such central issues as welfare, trade and crime. Mr. Obama's true audacity (and accomplishment) thus far has been to rebrand liberal goals on health care and economic security as "common sense" reforms behind which all Americans can unite.

You can't criticize Mr. Obama for not taking on antique Democratic thinking when it turned out he could win his party's nod without having to. That's just smart politics. But it won't work any longer.

As the general election takes shape, Mr. Obama now faces the one line of attack he didn't have to deal with in his long battle with Hillary Clinton: the charge that he is an extreme liberal whose tax-and-spend instincts will put America on the road to socialism. This drumbeat is already being sounded by conservative commentators who note the gap between the candidate's post-partisan rhetoric and what they dub his "redistributionist" agenda. It will become a roar from the McCain camp that Mr. Obama must silence if he's to sustain his broad appeal.

If the "too liberal" label sticks, Mr. Obama won't win. And if he doesn't demonstrate his openness to more ideologically androgynous means to achieve his goals, he won't be able to govern.

That means Mr. Obama needs three biggish ideas he can punch back with as the charges crescendo. "John McCain would have you believe I'm practically a socialist," Mr. Obama needs to be able to say with a laugh. "Well, ask yourselves this: Is a typical liberal for x, y and z?" These three proposals need to be so self-evidently a break with conventional liberal thinking and interest groups that it will instantly trump the GOP charge in the press, as well as in the eyes of independent voters and open-minded Republicans. Think of them as the policy equivalents of what Bill Clinton did when he distanced himself from the ugly racial animus of hip-hop artist Sister Souljah in 1992. So what should Obama's three "Sister Souljahs" on policy be? Here are my candidates:

- A new deal for teachers. Mr. Obama knows we need to attract a new generation of teachers to the nation's poorest schools, which today recruit from the bottom third of the college class. While money isn't the only answer (prestige and working conditions also matter greatly), even conservatives admit we'll never lure the talent we need unless the earnings trajectory for teachers in high poverty schools goes well beyond today's average starting wage of around $40,000, peaking after 20 years near $80,000. But we don't need to raise teacher salaries across the board -- it's the specialties (like math and science) and the toughest neighborhoods that face real crises.

Mr. Obama should therefore go beyond vague talk of modest pay reform and offer a bold new "grand bargain" to reshape the profession. He should make a $30 billion pot of federal money available to states and districts to boost salaries in poor schools, provided the teachers unions make two key concessions. First, they have to scrap their traditional "lockstep" pay scale. In this scheme, a physics grad has to be paid the same as a phys-ed major if both have the same tenure in the classroom, and a teacher whose students make remarkable gains each year gets rewarded no differently than one whose students languish. Second, it has to be easy to fire the awful teachers that are blighting the lives of a million poor children.

The unions will scream. But college students and younger teachers will crave the chance to earn, say, $150,000 if they excel. And smart union leaders know that something like this money-for-reform deal is the only way the public will ever invest to bolster teaching. Mr. Obama mentioned the idea of merit pay once a year ago. But the union blowback was so great that he didn't broach the subject again until a few days ago in an address to the National Education Association, when (to his credit) he stood his ground and faced some boos from his union audience as a result.

But now that he's dipped his toe in, he can capture the public's imagination by aiming much higher. He can explicitly endorse something like the breakthrough deal being pushed by Washington, D.C., schools chief Michelle Rhee, under which teachers could opt into a new pay schedule that gives them a chance to earn up to $130,000, but requires them to relinquish tenure and seniority rights as part of the bargain. A fresh Obama call for such "market-based pay" to elevate the status of teaching would be a common-sense, cost-effective way to get the teachers we need to the kids who need them most.

- Lower corporate taxes. Corporate tax rates in the U.S. are the second highest among developed countries. Democrats act as if these taxes are somehow a "freebie," paid by impersonal entities. But "corporations" don't pay taxes, people do. These taxes are ultimately borne by shareholders or employees. And corporate taxes help determine where multinational firms choose to locate, decisions that should be a major concern of policy makers who want to keep good jobs in the U.S. Mr. Obama has hinted he'd "consider" lowering corporate taxes at some point. Better now to say he'll make it a priority (tied to closing corporate loopholes and broadening the base) and parry liberal moans by explaining how high corporate taxes hurt American workers.

- Health savings accounts "done right." Liberals sensibly reject "consumer-directed health plans" loved by Republicans when these plans' high co-pays and deductibles put undue burdens on the sick and the poor. But there's a simple way to structure such plans to address these concerns while still bringing consumer incentives to bear on runaway health costs. The answer is to require such plans to limit the total medical costs a person can incur in a year to a reasonable percentage of income. By calling for annual out-of-pocket maximums to be tied explicitly to earnings, Mr. Obama would forge a new "third way" on health care, and cast himself as an innovator not beholden to the far left view that market forces should play no role in health care at all.

Mr. Obama likes to say, "We need a president who tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear." But as a candidate he's rarely made good on this pledge. By embracing this trio of common-sense ideas that will nonetheless raise hackles among his liberal supporters, Mr. Obama can go a long way toward slipping the lefty label that could sink him.

Source




Obama The Blur

At his current pace, Barack Obama is going to give Bill Clinton a run for his reputation as a political shape-shifter. Witness his performance this week in the Senate on foreign intelligence surveillance. He voted to gut the bill before he voted to pass it.

For two weeks, Mr. Obama has been taking flak from his left flank for declaring his support for executive branch eavesdropping on terrorists overseas. During the primaries, Mr. Obama had promised to join a filibuster to kill it. But, lo, as the general election beckoned, he saw the light of Presidential power shine upon him and decided not to give John McCain an opening to call him soft on national security.

But this week's Senate debate also featured three amendments that would have weakened or gutted the bipartisan compromise. Mr. Obama voted for all three. The worst, sponsored by Chris Dodd, would have gone so far as to strip immunity for the telecom companies that assisted the government after 9/11. Without immunity, the companies won't cooperate lest they get sued by the ACLU ad infinitum, putting U.S. security seriously at risk. Yet Mr. Obama was one of only 32 Senators who voted for this killer amendment.

Mr. Obama did vote for final passage, which prevailed 69-28, though no thanks to the Illinois Senator who will benefit most from the legislation if he wins in November. This is one more gift from President Bush to his successor, who won't have to spend political capital beating off the anti-antiterror left to protect this war-fighting ability.

Mr. Obama's both for-it and against-it pose raises the issue of what he really believes. Perhaps in voting for the killer amendments, he was trying to appease the left while knowing he'd pay no political price because the amendments would fail. But this hyper-triangulation hardly inspires confidence in a potential President, who doesn't have the luxury of being on both sides of every issue. Most Presidential campaigns put a candidate in sharper focus as they unfold. Since he's locked down the nomination, Mr. Obama has become the candidate who blurs.

Source




Obama's Poor English Lesson

Barack Obama has questioned, implicitly, the value of English as a primary language. Why shouldn't the rest of us learn to speak Spanish? What is so "special" about English? Pandering to Hispanic voters is at the heart of this latest swerve in Obama's insubstantial campaign, but picking on English is a very silly and very dangerous tactic towards a vital national and international issue.

Obama himself is the best argument for a black in America learning to master English. The candidate speaks English perfectly and that has made him the first viable black presidential candidate. If he spoke English like most inner city blacks, then -- unfairly perhaps -- millions of whites would have privately dismissed him as not up to the job of president. It is profoundly selfish of him to profit from his excellent English, and then to suggest that young Hispanics and other immigrants who have difficulty with English remain in their linguistic ghetto.

What should Obama be saying instead? How about something like this: "I was blessed to be raised in a home in which good English in a vernacular easily understood was normal. My ability to communicate in English well was not something that I had to work had to achieve, but it was something that opened many doors to me that would otherwise be closed to a young black man. If you want to succeed in America, just as Italians, Japanese, Jews, Greeks and so many other minorities have done, master English."

Obama is also dead wrong in pretending that English is "just another language" and that insisting Americans speak, read and write English is some sort of ethnic bias. English, instead, is the great unifier of mankind. Three of the eight members of the G8 -- America, Britain and Canada -- are English-speaking. India, the largest democracy in the world, uses English as its principal administrative language. Australia, which along with India is set to be one of the next nations admitted to the G8 group, is English-speaking too.

Pakistan, a tinderbox in the world today, uses English as a principal administrative language. Zimbabwe, another serious trouble spot, has a large number of English-speaking citizens. Nations like Malaysia and Nigeria, which sit on important religious and political rifts in our world, have large numbers of people who are English-speakers. Hong Kong, which is a crucial link between China and America, has millions of English-speakers.

In places from Belize to Bangladesh, from Singapore to South Africa, English is an important language and, in many cases, the most important language. Bismarck once said that the most important political fact of the 19th Century was that the British and the Americans spoke the same language. Nothing has made that observation less valid today. Understanding English is so important that hundreds of millions of people who do not live in English-speaking lands have learned English. Even our old enemy, the now dead Soviet Union, made English compulsory. This was not out of love for America "the main enemy," but because a grasp of English was such a priceless asset.

English is not just like any other language, any more than Latin in 1000 C.E. was "just another language." Anyone who wanted to seriously study anything, to exercise influence anywhere, or to advance professionally or commercially needed to know Latin even more than he knew the tongue of the land in which he lived. Because everyone who was anyone read and spoke Latin, Copernicus, a Pole, could give lectures in Italian universities. Doctors and lawyers today are seriously handicapped if they are completely ignorant of Latin. That is how strong the tug of dominant languages is across history.

English is like Latin. It is the means of mutual understanding, the vehicle of clear communication, the tool of study and research. Pilots of Chinese airliners landing in Tasjkent must speak English to the air traffic controllers: it is the universal language of modernity.

If Obama does not know these things, then he is too ignorant to safely sit in the Oval Office. If Obama knows these things, but prefers to dissemble, then he is worse than simply a political liar: He is a political liar whose lies, he knows, ruin people's lives.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





11 July, 2008

Alternate-Reality Iran

One of Barack Obama's greatest talents is his ability to re-frame questions extemporaneously so that he can provide a solution to a problem he wishes existed, rather than the problem that actually does exist. His answer to Hezbollah's mini-civil war in Lebanon two months ago was to call on Iran and Syria to reign in Hezbollah, as if those countries were bystanders whose help could be enlisted rather than the actual perpetrators of the crisis. Today, in noting Obama's answer to a bilingual education question, Jonah Goldberg comments that "Obama has a great gift at sounding insightful when he insipidly changes the subject to something completely different and more helpful to his cause."

And so it is again today with Obama's response to the missile display staged by Iran this morning, which as Gordon pointed out below was intended as a demonstration of Iran's retaliatory capabilities in response to an Israeli or American attack. The McCain campaign responded to the news by reiterating support for missile defense, which is the sensible thing to say when a terrorist theocracy makes a show of its ability to launch missiles at you and your allies. Obama, though, had a different message - the same message on Iran that he delivers no matter the particulars of the situation:

Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It's time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.

And thus is the Iran confrontation re-defined as something in harmony with the aesthetic of Obama's foreign policy. The premise of this alternate reality is that there has been scarcely any "work with our friends and allies" on Iran, virtually zero "aggressive diplomacy," only tepid attempts at unilateral and multilateral sanctions, and no offering of incentives for changed behavior. Of course, all of these things have been the staples of U.S. and western policy going on six years - and every one of them has proven incapable of dissuading Iran from its nuclear objectives. That which has been tried but failed is simply re-cast as untried.

And then there is Obama's only novel idea: that one-on-one presidential diplomacy is the secret missing ingredient to success with Iran. Yet it is impossible to find even the slightest shred of evidence that Iran continues to pursue its nuclear and missile programs only because the President of the United States refuses to engage personally, or send an emissary on his behalf, with the regime. This is not something the Iranians have ever requested, and it is doubtful that they would even agree to such engagement if it was proposed. Obama has never bothered to elaborate on why he believes that this linchpin of his Iran policy would work, and for good reason: there is no personalized message the President could deliver which would drive the regime off a course to which it has remained obstinately dedicated despite several rounds of Security Council sanctions, despite the likelihood of military attack, and despite many layers of financial sanctions and penalties imposed by the U.S. and other governments around the world.

There is something profoundly dangerous about a candidate for president who refuses to engage with foreign powers as they are. Opposite Iran, Obama offers a combination of the discredited and the improbable.

Source




Is Obama's Fundraising Goose Cooked?

Last week, former McCain campaign staffer Soren Dayton asked if Obama was "killing the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs":

Barack Obama has built a mythical fundraising operation based on small-dollar donors. These were primarily upper-middle class affluents who were energized by a change message. These were also the netroots. Recall that the 3 issues at the core of the netroots are FISA, Iraq, and net neutrality. Obama's recent actions seem to be going to be undermining his appeal with both of these groups, with potentially disastrous consequences for his small-dollar online fundraising.

After the FISA vote today, I was over at liberal blog Firedoglake and the comments on this post were mighty interesting:

* Fortunately I haven't given his campaign much money; I'll let them keep it, and donate elsewhere, where it will be put to better use.

* Can Obama opt back in for Public Financing? He's gonna need it.! I think the net roots funding has shriveled up and died.!

* Yessiree, I'm pissed. voting for yes. $, mmm, prob. not.

* Is there any consumer fraud involved with him saying he would fight to eliminate telco immunity, then reverses? Can you get our money back?

* Just blogged on My.BarackObama.com that I'd not be giving any more money to his campaign, will be going to Accountability PAC instead.

* I seriously think we need to consider organizing a write-in campaign. I think we could do it.

Etc., etc. You get the picture.

Source