Is Barack Obama A Racist?

5 12 2009

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]


As the first year since Barack Obama’s election as president passes into history, it is worthwhile to read (or reread) and reflect on his “Dreams from My Father,” which was first published in 1995, when he was 33 years old.  In his preface to the 2004 edition—only a scant five years ago, when the book was republished—he does not disavow or even soften his often-harsh sentiments at all.  However, he does mention that his mother died of cancer right after the book was first published; and in retrospect, he might not have written the same book about an “absent parent,” his father, but instead might have celebrated her life.[2] He loved her, and writes: “[S]he was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and . . . what is best in me I owe to her.”[3]

The book is still relevant and instructive today because it provides a window into his core beliefs—unfiltered by aides or the pandering to voters that so often takes place when a politician is running for public office.  These core beliefs came into being many years before we heard his name or knew how to pronounce it; and they are being reflected in his actions and policies that affect each of us.  Also, the book warrants a careful reexamination at this juncture in his presidency, when a growing number of Americans are having second thoughts or “buyers’ remorse” about the man in the White House.

Barack Obama is not his Kenyan father, nor his mother.  Perhaps he comes closest to being his maternal grandparents, “Toot” and “Gramps.”  They loved him dearly and nourished him when he was growing up as a “half-breed”—his term, not mine[4]—caught between two cultures, one white and the other non-white. He writes lovingly about his grandparents: “They had sacrificed again and again for me.  They had poured all their lingering hopes into my success.  Never had they given me reason to doubt their love; I doubted if they ever would.”[5] Later, he would write: “I looked out the window, thinking about my mother, Toot, and Gramps, and how grateful I was to them—for who they were. . . .”[6]

Because of his looks and not his parentage or lineage, he made a conscious decision to be black.  Once he made it, he seemed to put the white world behind him and to identify with the “victimization” of blacks.  For example, he writes: “[T]o admit our doubt and confusion to whites, to open up our psyches to general examination by those who had caused so much of the damage in the first place, seemed ludicrous, itself an expression of self-hatred—for there seemed no reason to expect that whites would look at our private struggles as a mirror into their own souls, rather than yet more evidence of black pathology.”[7] In these and other similar statements, he evidenced how far he had traveled from the white world of his mother and her parents who raised him.

The transformation seems to have started when young “Barry” Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia, where he had been living with his mother and her second husband, to live with her parents and enroll at Honolulu’s elite, ethnically and culturally diverse Punahou School—where his sense that he “didn’t belong continued to grow.”[8] He began hanging around and identifying with the few black Punahou students and other black teenagers “whose confusion and anger would help shape [his] own.”[9] He writes about loneliness that made him want to run “back into the sort of pain a boy could understand,”[10] and he speaks about “the sense of abandonment [he’d] felt as a boy.”[11] Also, he writes that he was “trying to raise [himself] to be a black man in America,”[12] and “living out a caricature of black male adolescence, itself a caricature of swaggering American manhood.”[13]

It was during this time that he developed a “ledger of slights.”[14] He adds: “I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds, understanding that each possessed its own language and customs and structures of meaning, convinced that with a bit of translation on my part the two worlds would eventually cohere.”[15] Still at Punahou, he would recall: “[T]he only thing you could choose as your own was withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage, until being black meant only the knowledge of your own powerlessness, of your own defeat.  And the final irony: Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good.  Paranoid.  Militant.  Violent.  Nigger.”[16]

One wonders whether on some level Obama thought in those terms about the whites who made his future successes possible?  If not, why was he choosing to identify so much with the “victimization” of blacks and with anti-white feelings?  Is that the anger he “inherited” from his Kenyan father with multiple wives, who was a stern disciplinarian and loved him so much that the father spent only one month of his life with young Barry when he was 10 years old[17], and effectively abandoned him the rest of the time?  In his own words, he reflects on his feelings as that 10-year-old when his father visited Hawaii: “I began to count the days until my father would leave and things would return to normal.”[18] Also, he acknowledges his anger.[19]

Later, in Kenya, he realizes what his life might have been like when he views a photo album of his father’s third wife and their family.  “They were happy scenes, all of them, and all strangely familiar, as if I were glimpsing some alternative universe that had played itself out behind my back.  . . .  Here it was, I thought, what might have been.  And the recognition of how wrong it had all turned out . . . made me so sad that after only a few minutes I had to look away.”[20] However, he expresses great love for his father too, and places him on a pedestal at times[21]—and there is mention of the fact that his father was highly educated, generous and never held a grudge.[22] There is no claim or insinuation that his father was a racist; and his mother certainly was not a racist.[23]

At Occidental College in Los Angeles, Obama hung out with blacks too[24], but seemed to mellow somewhat.  He writes: “I had stumbled upon one of the well-kept secrets about black people: that most of us weren’t interested in revolt; that most of us were tired of thinking about race all the time. . . .”[25] In writing about a young multiracial student named Joyce, he quotes her as saying: “It’s not white people who are making me choose.  Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person.  No—it’s black people who always have to make everything racial.  They’re the ones making me choose.”[26] Yet, Obama rejects her beliefs, and allies himself with others who are “alienated.”[27] He seems to mellow somewhat again by admitting: “My identity might begin with the fact of my race, but it didn’t, couldn’t, end there.”[28]

When he arrived in New York City to attend Columbia University, he became “Barack” as opposed to “Barry,”[29] and he asked rhetorically: “Where do I belong?”[30] Also, he asked: “Did any of us [know where we belonged]?  Where were the fathers, the uncles and grandfathers, who could help explain this gash in our hearts?”[31] Leaving a theater in New York with his mother and half-sister Maya, he observed: “The emotions between the races could never be pure. . . .  Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”[32] Later, in writing about his times in Chicago and the stories he had heard from the black leadership, Obama says: “They had arisen out of a very particular experience with hate.  That hate hadn’t gone away; it formed a counternarrative buried deep within each person and at the center of which stood white people—some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”[33]

Yet, as he was about to embark on his life in Chicago (before attending law school), he reflected: “[T]his community I imagined was still in the making, built on the promise that the larger American community, black, white, and brown, could somehow redefine itself—I believed that it might, over time, admit the uniqueness of my own life.”[34] And it has, as our first non-white American president.  While commenting on his work in Chicago, however, he concludes: “If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.”[35] In discussing the difficulties facing black businesses, he mentions “the leg up that your [white] competitors possessed after having kept you out of the game for over three hundred years”[36]—again, the issue of black victimization.

What is perhaps most striking is that he never expounds on any religious beliefs or spirituality, much less a belief in God.  However, the book spans so much of his life—and his formative years—and deals with almost every other subject imaginable that one could think or write about.  Perhaps the closest he comes to dealing with the subject may be reflected in the following comments: “I remained a reluctant skeptic, doubtful of my own motives, wary of expedient conversion, having too many quarrels with God to accept a salvation too easily won.”[37] Also, when he and his Kenyan half-sister Auma are on a safari, he listens to their Kikuyu driver sing a hymn at night while Obama is walking back to his tent, and he writes: “I felt I understood Francis’s plaintive song, imagining it transmitting upward, through the clear black night, directly to God.”[38] One is left to wonder about his beliefs, and whether his attendance at churches in subsequent years may be for political reasons, and calculated, which is true of many politicians.

Other issues raised in the book include:

  • What would have become of Obama’s life if he had gotten hooked on the illegal drugs he was taking?  For example, he writes: “Junkie.  Pothead.  That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.”[39]
  • To what extent has he has been successful at anything other than writing, speaking, campaigning, politics and getting elected—being a professional politician?  For example, the book evidences few significant accomplishments as a “community organizer.”  Indeed, he writes: “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly.  Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change.  Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.  Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt.”[40] Also, he accomplished nothing memorable in the U.S. Senate during the short time he was actually there.
  • How his socialist and anti-capitalist views are reshaping America, and the damage that may result?  His biases are reflected in the book.  For example, in New York City before he moved to Chicago for the first time, he went to work as a research assistant at a consulting house to multinational corporations, where he recalled feeling like “a spy behind enemy lines.”[41] That spy effectively “owns” General Motors, Chrysler and major American banks and other business entities; and he has not hesitated to dictate to them—including that GM’s CEO be removed and what cars the company is to make in the future.  History is replete with the names of other world leaders who have tried to run areas of economic and societal activity, without having any knowledge[42], and they have failed.
  • How to address the sense of black victimization that is reflected in so much of his book?  For example, by way of contrasting the attitudes of various American minority groups including Asians, he cites a black man who says: “I guess we worked so long for nothing, we feel like we shouldn’t have to break our backs just to survive.  That’s what we tell our children anyway.”[43]
  • Whom will Obama blame if his popularity fades (e.g., because of perceived narcissistic arrogance and incompetence) and his presidency fails?  Since he and his party control the White House and Congress, the buck stops with him; and sooner or later, he may come to be viewed by a majority of Americans as the problem, not the solution.  Will he handle his descent from “Mount Olympus” gracefully, or will his fall from grace be a tumultuous one?
  • What scandals will unfold involving his life and administration, such as the federal funding of organizations like ACORN that have engaged in massive voter fraud or other criminal activities?  Ultimately, will Obama be ensnared in a web, politically and legally—a victim of the very need for change that he has preached for so many years?  He writes: “Real change [is] . . . an extension of my personal will and my mother’s faith. . . .”[44]
  • Former Senator Edward W. Brooke, the first black U.S. Senator since Reconstruction, was a trailblazer too; however, he did not try to change America because of any deep-seated hatred of whites or our capitalist system.  After reading “Dreams from My Father,” most Americans will have few if any doubts why Obama associated with and befriended Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.  Their radical views seem consistent with his.
  • The messianic adoration of Obama is reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, his presidency and sycophants.  What will we learn about Barack Obama in the future?  If he has feet of clay too[45], how will that factor alone manifest itself and affect America and its role in the world, and the fates and fortunes of individual Americans?  Also, will our adversaries (e.g., North Korea, Al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China) determine he is weak and naïve, and hurt our great nation deeply, capitalizing on that naïveté?

Because Obama does not appear to be religious, one wonders whether he has the courage, depth and capacity to provide the moral authority and spiritual vision and leadership to guide America and its culturally rich and diverse people through truly perilous times?  Jimmy Carter was a man of God, yet he failed.  Carter did not have feet of clay though.  If Obama’s goal is to grow government, his naïveté knows no bounds.  Having worked in and with the federal government for 21 years nonstop, I believe the only agency of government that is remotely efficient and effective is the Pentagon and our military, which have been performing magnificently.

In writing about a young black organizer named Rafiq aka Wally Thompson, Obama says: “[H]e was less interested in changing the rules of power than in the color of those who had it and who therefore enjoyed its spoils.”[46] Is that what Obama is all about too?  Before he left Chicago for Kenya, he observed: “[N]otions of purity—of race or of culture—could no more serve as the basis for the typical black American’s self-esteem than it could for mine.”[47] That seems to have been an awakening for him.  Also, he came face to face with the realities of his father as a man: “It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself. . . .   Now, . . . that image had suddenly vanished.  Replaced by . . . what?  A bitter drunk?  An abusive husband?  A defeated, lonely bureaucrat?  To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost!  . . .  Whatever I do, it seems, I won’t do much worse than he did.”[48]

En route to Kenya, he referred to himself as “a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers.”[49] He grew up in Hawaii, Indonesia and then Hawaii again, which are hardly the “heartland” of America, so his experiences were different than those of most Americans.  It is arguable that he had not assimilated fully into the American “culture,” and that his father’s absence from his life—as well as his mother’s absences—contributed to his sense of abandonment and anger.  In trying to find his “identity,” he had immersed himself in the writings of people who were “alienated” as well, and he embraced those lessons.  He adds: “Stripped of . . . the racial obsessions to which I’d become so accustomed and which I had taken (perversely) as a sign of my own maturation[,] I had been forced to look inside myself and had found only a great emptiness there.  . . .  What if . . . [my father’s] leaving me behind meant nothing, and the only tie that bound me to him, or to Africa, was a name, a blood type, or white people’s scorn?”[50]

In Kenya, his alienation is reflected once again when he characterizes other tourists as expressing “a confidence reserved for those born into imperial cultures.”[51] Also, throughout the book, he expresses his intense dislike for “colonialism,” which is perhaps summarized by his thoughts as he rides a train and imagines how a British officer might have felt on its maiden voyage: “Would he have felt a sense of triumph, a confidence that the guiding light of Western civilization had finally penetrated the African darkness?  Or did he feel a sense of foreboding, a sudden realization that the entire enterprise was an act of folly, that this land and its people would outlast imperial dreams?”[52] Yet, he tells his Kenyan aunts: “We’re all part of one tribe.  The black tribe.  The human tribe.”[53]

In terms of his presidency, his comments about the late black Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s last campaign are interesting and instructive: “The business community sent him their checks, resigned to his presence.  So secure was his power that rumblings of discontent had finally surfaced within his own base, among black nationalists upset with his willingness to cut whites and Hispanics into the action, among activists disappointed with his failure to tackle poverty head-on, and among people who preferred the dream to the reality, impotence to compromise.”[54] Will Obama’s presidency and legacy follow a similar pattern: doing enough to mollify his base, while reaching out to others in an effort to broaden that base and seek his reelection and the election of a Democrat majority in Congress during the years ahead?

Early in the book, he is careful to point out: “I wouldn’t do anything stupid.  It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.”[55] Perhaps those words encapsulate his political life, his campaign for the presidency, and how he is governing and hopes to survive the global economic meltdown, national security challenges and growing constituent anger, while trying to change the essence of America.

In the final analysis, will he be viewed as a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history?  Will his naïveté have been matched by his overarching narcissism, and will he be considered more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter?  Will his presidency be considered a sad watershed in history?  Or will he succeed and prove his detractors wrong, and be viewed as the “anointed one” and a true political “messiah”?  Even Abraham Lincoln was never accorded such accolades, much less during his lifetime.  And Barack Obama’s core beliefs are light years away from those of Ronald Reagan.

© 2009, Timothy D. Naegele


[1] Mr. Naegele was counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee; and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass), the first black senator since Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates (www.naegele.com).  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years.  See, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles

[2] Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), pp. xi-xii.

[3] Id. at xii.

[4] Id. at 100.

[5] Id. at 89.

[6] Id. at 343.

[7] Id. at 193.

[8] Id. at 59-60.

[9] Id. at 80.

[10] Id. at 341.

[11] Id. at 430.

[12] Id. at 76.

[13] Id. at 79.

[14] Id. at 80.

[15] Id. at 82.

[16] Id. at 85.

[17] Id. at 125, 342.

[18] Id. at 68.

[19] Id. at 115, 270.

[20] Id. at 342-343.

[21] Id. at 129, 220.

[22] Id. at 220, 336-337.

[23] Id. at 127.

[24] Id. at 98.

[25] Id. at 98.

[26] Id. at 99 (emphasis in original).

[27] Id. at 101.

[28] Id. at 111.

[29] Id. at 118.

[30] Id. at 115; see also p. 199.

[31] Id. at 118.

[32] Id. at 124.

[33] Id. at 195.

[34] Id. at 135.

[35] Id. at 200.

[36] Id. at 201.

[37] Id. at 286-287; see also p. 295.

[38] Id. at 358.

[39] Id. at 93; see also pp. 120, 270.

[40] Id. at 133.

[41] Id. at 135.

[42] For example, Adolf Hitler tried to run his country’s military and other activities; and ultimately, he destroyed everything within his control—including Germany, at least a generation of Germans, and millions of innocent people.

[43] Id. at 182.

[44] Id. at 229.

[45] See, e.g., Thomas C. Reeves’ “A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy,” and Seymour M. Hersh’s “The Dark Side of Camelot.”

[46] Id. at 202.

[47] Id. at 204.

[48] Id. at 220-221.

[49] Id. at 301.

[50] Id. at 301-302.

[51] Id. at 312.

[52] Id. at 368.

[53] Id. at 348.

[54] Id. at 287.

[55] Id. at 94.


Actions

Information

71 responses

28 12 2009
naegeleblog

See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-27-carters-love_N.htm

Regardless of one’s views of Jimmy Carter’s politics, his life with Rosalynn is a wonderful and loving story.

Like

28 12 2009
naegeleblog

PLEASE NOTE:

It should be clear after reading this article that I am not interested in racists calling Barack Obama a racist. Also, in asking the question, I have left it up to the reader of this article, and of “Dreams from My Father,” to make a determination for himself and herself. All I have done is set out statements that Obama made, which seem to form a pattern, and which have never been denounced by him. I do not presume to get into his head or heart. I have included comments, especially about his mother and grandparents, which are very kind and endearing.

Like

30 01 2010
naegeleblog

One’s belief in and path to God is very personal. Some people wear it on their sleeves, and shout it from the mountaintops, while others prove their faith “quietly” each and every day—by confronting challenges that are big and small, some of which may truly seem like mountains at the time.

It is in this context that one must view Barack Obama’s religious beliefs, to the extent they exist. It has been reported that he and his family publicly attended religious services in Washington, D.C. just three times in the past year, and not on Christmas Day, 2009. See http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9689272

This seems consistent with my article above, in which I conclude after reading his book: “[H]e never expounds on any religious beliefs or spirituality, much less a belief in God.” Also, I wrote:

Because Obama does not appear to be religious, one wonders whether he has the courage, depth and capacity to provide the moral authority and spiritual vision and leadership to guide America and its culturally rich and diverse people through truly perilous times?

Time will tell.

Like

28 02 2010
Momlee

Obama kept looking for direction as the drama in his life had more questions than answers. We can’t understand his quandry but he had a family, a home and people that loved and cared about him. He wanted his fathers attention and guidance but was ignored. We get that. Give me a break….so many children have had poor care and have moved on. Obama is his own man. Poor me is pathetic. He’s very clever and it’s totally obvious he wants us to be a european democracy. He surrounds himself with radicals and definately shares their views. He sold us on being a centrist and turned out to be a leftist and a poor leader. The no drama Obama is proving nugatory. He loves the camera and is finally getting the attention he lacked as a child.

Like

1 03 2010
naegeleblog

Thank you for your comments, Lee.

Yes, I agree. “Dreams from My Father” is a fascinating book, which I read twice after the election.

As indicated in the article above, he took that direction when he was a student at Punahou in Honolulu, long before he set foot on the American mainland—and after having lived in Indonesia too, with his mother’s Indonesian husband.

Based on the book and everything else that I have read, she and young Barry’s father never married, much less got a divorce. It is clear though that his father had multiple “wives,” as well as children with his first wife in Kenya before he ever set foot in Hawaii.

His father was with young Barry for only one month of his life, when he was 10 and the father visited Honolulu. Barry’s mother was often gone, so the only stabilizing influences in his life were his maternal grandparents, “Toot” and “Gramps.” They loved him dearly and nourished him, and he acknowledges that. In fact, the most touching comments in the book are about his mother and her parents. They were his rock—which is why the anti-White sentiments in his book and his later life are “stunning,” to say the least.

Also, I agree with your comments: “He sold us on being a centrist and turned out to be a leftist and a poor leader.” As I point out in the article above: he has never been “successful at anything other than writing, speaking, campaigning, politics and getting elected—being a professional politician.” He and his Chicago crowd (e.g., Rahm Emanuel) may be in the process of getting their political comuppance, bigtime.

Lastly, there is no question that he is a narcissist; and as European leaders point out, he is too arrogant to admit when he knows little or nothing about a subject. This may be a basis of his undoing ultimately, among other factors.

Like

1 03 2010
Momlee

Mr. Naegele,

Why are you not involved in politics? We as a country need smart leaders as yourself.

We can only hope Americans won’t have short memories come 2012. They so much want to believe in this young knight. He may try to change his stripes but the wind is at his back. Everyday his suporters are deminishing. Too much time is still left, but we’ll see. He’s so comfortable in his skin but is bound to suffer foot’n mouth disease which will impair his performance.

I may be over the hill, (a senior) but it’s better than being under it.

Again, get involved. Thanks for your input.

Like

1 03 2010
naegeleblog

How nice of you to say this, Lee, but I have been there and done that. See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html

I may help with a campaign shortly, but I am only interested where there is a chance to make a real difference.

In the world of politics, 2012 is light years away. So many things can happen between now and then that it is difficult if not impossible to predict. What is most important, or so I believe, is that Independents who supported Obama are deserting him. They can and will tip the scales.

However, the GOP must have a candidate who can beat him, unless he becomes so damaged—like Jimmy Carter was—that the door is open to lots of GOP candidates, which may happen.

Before reading his book, I had two reasons not to vote for him: national security and the economy. I believe he has been a disaster with respect to both; and it is only apt to get much worse before he leaves office.

See, e.g, http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama/

Your comments are excellent, and you may want to get involved too! :-)

Like

2 04 2010
naegeleblog

Obama’s Policy Of Slapping Allies

This is the title of an article by the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, which is worth reading—as are all of his weekly columns.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040102805.html

The fact is that most if not all of Barack Obama’s views and policies are understandable if one reads his “Dreams from My Father.”

His treatment of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Brits mirrors his feelings about “colonialism,” and “imperial” cultures and dreams. For example, as my article states, in Kenya his alienation was reflected when he characterized other tourists as expressing “a confidence reserved for those born into imperial cultures.”

See Barack Obama, “Dreams from My Father” (paperback “Revised Edition,” published by Three Rivers Press, 2004), p. 312.

Also, his intense dislike for colonialism is perhaps summarized by his thoughts when he rode on a train and imagined how a British officer might have felt on its maiden voyage:

Would he have felt a sense of triumph, a confidence that the guiding light of Western civilization had finally penetrated the African darkness? Or did he feel a sense of foreboding, a sudden realization that the entire enterprise was an act of folly, that this land and its people would outlast imperial dreams?

See id. at 368; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist

Krauthammer’s quoting of David Manning—a former British ambassador to the United States—is apt: “[Obama] is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there.” Even more precisely, Obama was repulsed by colonialism and the British Empire, and it is reflected in his policies today.

With respect to the Falkland Islands and India, his policies may simply reflect his views about colonialism.

Aside from the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the most dangerous and irresponsible leader that Israel has ever had, Obama’s dislike for him probably reflects his belief that the Israelis are the oppressors, and the Palestinians are the oppressed, much like he viewed Apartheid in South Africa.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/

Why Obama coddles the Russians is unfathomable though, unless he seeks their help with Iran, which is very naive.

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/

His treatment of Honduras is a mystery too, unless some policy advisers have convinced him.

Like

11 11 2010
Joseph

“Aside from the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the most dangerous and irresponsible leader that Israel has ever had.”

Based on your other comments re Israel over the years, methinks that any Israeli not willing to surrender their (God-given—there I said it!) land to blood-thirsty terrorists who can’t even live in peace with their own kind, is dangerous and irresponsible in your eyes.

Like

11 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments, Joseph, which mirror what you said in a postings below.

Again, I have discussed these issues fully in another article, and in postings beneath it, which I will not repeat here. You might wish to read them.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/

Like

21 05 2010
Winston

Mr. Naegele,

Thank you for a very interesting, thorough, and thoughtful analysis of the narrative about Obama in Dreams From My Father.

I say “about Obama” because I do not believe Obama wrote the book. He does not and never did possess the literary talent or skills to create anything remotely resembling it.

Jack Cashill has done a meticulous job deconstructing both the text and the style of the book, and concludes, I believe irrefutably, that the book was authored in whole or substantial part by Obama’s friend and neighbor, veteran writer William Ayers.

http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/improvised_odyssey.htm

Cashill’s thesis has been confirmed in the recent Obama bio by Christopher Andersen, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage. Andersen reports that Obama, who was under contract and unable to produce a manuscript, at Michelle’s urging “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” What attracted the Obamas were “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer.” Obama delivered a box of his notes and tape recorded memos, and then, “Thanks to help from the veteran writer Ayers,” writes Andersen, “Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books.”

The book, like Obama, is a fraud. And when it is read with the understanding that the real voice is that of a radical revolutionary and member of the Weather Underground – the words takes on substantially different and considerably more ominous meanings.

Like

21 05 2010
naegeleblog

Thank you, Winston, for your comments.

Yes, I am aware of what you describe (e.g., that Ayers wrote at least part of the book), and it may be true.

The book is very well written, yet shocking in many respects, as my article above points out. If more Americans had read the book, I doubt he would have been elected.

His policies to date are consistent with the book, as I have pointed out in this and other articles.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/obama-in-afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/barack-obama-america’s-second-emperor and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama

Like

26 05 2010
naegeleblog

What Would Reagan Do?

The Wall Street Journal has a fine article by David Malpass entitled, “The Panic, Round Two: What Would Reagan Do?” that is worth reading.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/DavidMalpass-ThePanicRoundTwo-WhatWouldReaganDo.pdf

Yes, the panics are upon us—and there will be many of them globally—as America and the world sink deeper into what economic historians will describe 20-40 years from now as the “Great Depression II,” or by some similar label.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-great-depression-ii

David Malpass is right in asking what would Reagan do, because the former president—certainly at the top of his game—might have figured out a way of getting us out of this mess, or of somehow making it less onerous than it will be. After all, he was a creature of the “Great Depression I,” and he learned its lessons well.

Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent in December 1982, two years after his election—which was higher than any time since the first Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan’s presidency. But facts and figures do not tell the whole story of the Reagan presidency by any means: his personality and leadership qualities, and his ability to instill hope and optimism.

See, e.g., http://www.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2009/08/27/is-unemployment-the-worst-since-the-great-depression.html

One must remember too that Paul Volcker was Chairman of the Fed, and he contributed mightily to keeping the economy on an even keel, and preventing runaway inflation. He was followed by Alan Greenspan, who never saw the Housing Crisis coming, and he testified to that before a House committee. Or, as Giulio Tremonti, Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance, put it: “Greenspan was considered a master. Now we must ask ourselves whether he is not, after [Osama] bin Laden, the man who hurt America the most.” That speaks volumes, in terms of the human suffering domestically and globally, which Greenspan launched.

See http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/173_212/-365185-1.html; see also http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/

Implicit in Malpass’ fine article is the fact that Congress does not know what it is doing. Most politicians have zero training in economics, and do not understand it, and have no appreciation for economic history. They are simply interested in getting elected and reelected, and wielding power while they have it.

Malpass adds correctly:

As Reagan understood, true leadership requires stating goals and taking decisive action, in this case reducing government spending substantially enough to convince the private sector to invest again.

However, Ronald Reagan’s leadership was broader and more important than that. He instilled confidence and optimism when there had been little or none, across the board (e.g., national security, economics).

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/

Sadly, Reagan’s leadership and vision are lacking now, as wrong-headed politicians lead us father down the path toward financial ruin, dashing the hopes and dreams of Americans and their counterparts worldwide. However, the days of reckoning are upon us. America and other nations are in uncharted waters; and their politicians may face backlashes from disillusioned and angry constituents that are unprecedented in modern times. We are beginning to see that now.

Also, Barack Obama has zero experience with respect to economic and a plethora of other issues. Americans should read (or reread) his “Dreams from My Father,” and realize that he is one of the most “uneducated” presidents in American history, in terms of real-world issues. This is not said by way of condemnation, but as a fact.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

At best he is an academic. Perhaps more importantly, he and his advisers are “a bunch of academics” and ideologues, who have pre-set ideas about how the world should function, which do not square with reality. In many ways, they are the most ill-equipped individuals to confront and understand the “Great Depression II,” much get us through it.

I cannot think of another group that is so ill-equipped to deal with critical issues facing America and the world (e.g., two wars, the risk of any EMP or other devastating attack, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, the Great Depression II). Fortunately, no calamities hit the Clinton years. We are not and will not be so lucky this time around.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan was blessed—yes, blessed by God. He had innate wisdom and a reservoir of faith, confidence, optimism and good will, and collective life experiences that allowed him to do just the right thing at the right time. Clearly, the fall of the “Evil Empire” was a shining achievement, but there were many many others too.

Like

19 06 2010
naegeleblog

Obama Loathes the British, Colonialism And The Israelis

My article above explains Barack Obama’s feelings about the British and Colonialism, which are clear when one reads his book, “Dreams from My Father.” He hated apartheid too, which he equates with the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians.

UK’s Daily Mail has an interesting article, which states in part:

The Kenyan bowed his head as his captors opened the prison cell door to deliver another brutal whipping—a punishment meted out after he was accused of taking part in the independence movement against the British colonial authorities.

The man had been working as a cook for a British Army officer. And his name? Hussein Onyango Obama—President Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather.

He had been arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison. There, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence. They say British soldiers used torture in an effort to get him to reveal rebel secrets.

. . .

[T]hese bitter tales form part of the Obama family folklore, and seem to have left the U.S. President with a vehemently anti-British outlook.

So has Obama’s memory of his grandfather’s treatment influenced his aggressive reaction to BP over its handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill?

The [UK] Government has become increasingly concerned by Obama’s anti-British rhetoric. For example, he has often referred to the global company as ‘British Petroleum’, although it changed its name to BP more than a decade ago, and even compared the disaster to 9/11.

But this is not the first time he has paid little heed to the so-called Special Relationship. When he entered the Oval office, he immediately returned a bust of Winston Churchill that was on loan from Britain.

And during the recent stand-off between Britain and Argentina over oil rights around the Falkland Islands, America was less than supportive.

. . .

For some time, [Hussein Onyango Obama] was too traumatised to speak about his experiences. Mrs Onyango told her grandson: ‘From that day on, I saw that he was now an old man.’ This week she told us: ‘My husband rarely spoke about the British and colonial rule after his arrest. All I know is that he hated them.

‘After serving the British very diligently, they turned him into enemy number one.

‘His awful tales of his experiences at the British torture chambers always moved his emotions. He wondered why the British never respected African culture.

. . .

The old man would shed tears at the mention of the British and colonial rule. He simply hated them.’

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287828/Revealed-Why-President-Obama-loathes-British.html

This article is consistent with Obama’s “Dreams from My Father.”

Like

24 06 2010
Joseph

While I share many of your opinions, I find your hatred of Israel, a fellow democracy trying to survive in a sea of hate, both perplexing and disturbing. Casting your lot with murderous savages over peace-loving Israel reveals the blackness of your soul.

Ironically, it was when Jew-haters like yourself mobbed the Dreyfuss trial in Paris a century or so ago that Hertzl envisoned a Jewish State as a refuge. The good Lord has a wonderful sense of irony don’t you think?

Like

24 06 2010
naegeleblog

Thank you, Joseph, for your comments.

I do not hate Israel at all. My views on this subject are set forth in another article that you may wish to read (and the postings beneath it), about the damage being done by Netanyahu.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/israels-senseless-killings-and-war-with-iran/

As stated in that article, Netanyahu was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw “only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and of course she was correct.

Also, I am forever reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel with impeccable credentials) told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

I was stunned by this person’s words, and I have reflected on them many times since. This undergirds my sense of urgency concerning the Israeli-Palestinian peace process—not peace at any price, but something different than the approach being taken by Netanyahu.

Like

6 11 2010
Keith Beveridge

Hi Tim,

Very nice article. BHO’s life story is representative of most of the problematic issues our country faces with regard to its citizenry politically, psychologically, and culturally. It also demonstrates the hope that America provides to its people.

BHO is a lightningrod for the disaffected. It is clear that with his childhood, he grew up feeling disillusioned and more than a little angry at his life situation. The fact that his father abandoned the family was clearly the most seminal fact that shaped his core belief system, which you point out, probably does not include a strong belief in God.

But his rise to power is also indicative of what a determined and intelligent person can do in this country.

I think the lesson we learn from this presidency is that America is great enough to allow the common man rise to the highest level, but that high level does not come cheaply or without responsibility.

America is smarter now after experiencing a president like BHO. He should be commended and respected for his accomplishments. But we, and he, should learn from his mistakes. We all need to change course a bit in reaction to what we have learned from BHO to make America even greater than it already is.

Like

6 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Keith, for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, I agree completely. Well said. :-)

Like

11 11 2010
Joseph

“As stated in that article, Netanyahu was hated by former Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin—and especially by Rabin’s wife Leah, who blamed Netanyahu for her husband’s assassination. She saw ‘only doom for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process’ with Netanyahu at Israel’s helm; and of course she was correct.”

I recall the Oslo days clearly and distinctly remember Leah Rabin partying on, and her husband and Shimon Peres hobnobbing with European elites as daily bus bombings in Jerusalem murdered hundreds while the three of them and their stooges blithely droned on regarding the need to “sacrifice” for peace and how one does not make peace with friends but with sworn enemies.

And you knew of an Israeli who was critical of his own government, eh? Well I know some Moslems and Arabs who support Israel, so I guess that makes us even.

Like

11 11 2010
Momlee

After two years of Obama it is quite evident he pretends to talk the talk but hides his descrimination. He’s definitely a racist along with his whole administration. As I said before he’s going to be a one term president. We may not know the whole man but his views are so flawed and should be impeached. His friend George Schwartz Soros speaks his language, supports his agenda and dictates all of his policies. No need to say more.

Like

1 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

[Note: What follows is a series of comments about developments in the Middle East, which will only get worse, far worse. They underscore the tragic nature of Barack Obama's presidency. Prior to the 2008 American elections, I gave serious thought to voting for him and working to help him get elected. Today, I have zero faith in him, and believe he should be removed from office at the earliest possible date. He is an unmitigated disaster as president, which was totally predictable if anyone (including yours truly) had bothered to read his book, "Dreams from My Father," before the 2008 elections. The article above discusses that book in great detail, quoting his words extensively; and it is every bit as relevant today as it was more than two years ago.]

. . .

Will Barack Obama Go Down In History As The President Who Lost The Middle East?

As I have written:

[Obama's] naïveté is matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter. Indeed, it is likely that his presidency will be considered a sad and tragic watershed in history; and the American people are recognizing this more and more with each day that passes. Hopefully he chooses to end his political career with dignity by not running for reelection in 2012, instead of continuing to drag this great nation down with him.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected

He is a cowardly demagogue, who failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election.

It was a seminal moment in Obama’s presidency up to that point in time. He flinched, and demonstrated to the world that he is not a true small-“d” democrat; and that he is weak like Jimmy Carter was. He stood with our enemy, the theocracy in Iran.

With respect to Egypt, the United States must do whatever is necessary to make sure that radical Islam does not take over the country. If it happens, and if that spreads—for example to Jordan, another ally of ours and of Israel—at the very least Obama will go down in history as the president who lost the Middle East. Also, this might determine the fate of Israel.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-1344; but see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703833204576114252976824050.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (“Egypt . . . has the opportunity to become what it always should have been—the leader of a movement toward freedom and democracy in the Arab world”)

Political pundit and former Bill Clinton adviser, Dick Morris, has warned:

Unless President Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim [B]rotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the . . . question: Who Lost Egypt?

The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran.

The United States has enormous leverage in Egypt—far more than it had in Iran. We provide Egypt with upwards of $2 billion a year in foreign aid under the provisos of the Camp David Accords orchestrated by Carter. The Egyptian military, in particular, receives $1.3 billion of this money. The United States, as the pay master, needs to send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead, Obama has put our military aid to Egypt “under review” to pressure Mubarak to mute his response to the demonstrators and has given top priority to “preventing the loss of human life.”

President Obama should say that Egypt has always been a friend of the United States. He should point out that it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. He should recall that President Sadat, who signed the peace accords, paid for doing so with his life and that President Mubarak has carried on in his footsteps. He should condemn the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood extremists to take over the country and indicate that America stands by her longtime ally. He should address the need for reform and urge Mubarak to enact needed changes. But his emphasis should be on standing with our ally.

The return of Nobel laureate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) . . . to Egypt as the presumptive heir to Mubarak tells us where this revolution is headed. Carolyn Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, explains how dangerous ElBaradei is. “As IAEA head,” she writes, “Elbaradei shielded Iran’s nuclear weapons program from the Security Council. He [has] continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran…Last week, he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran [saying] ‘there is a lot of hype in this debate’.”

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Glick notes that “it forms the largest and best organized opposition to the Mubarak regime and [is] the progenitor of Hamas and al [Qaeda]. It seeks Egypt’s transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad.”

Now is the time for Republicans and conservatives to start asking the question: Who is losing Egypt? We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won’t. Iranian domination will.

Egypt, with 80 million people, is the largest country in the Middle East or North Africa. Combined with Iran’s 75 million (the second largest) they have 155 million people. By contrast the entire rest of the region—Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Jordan, UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar combined—have only 200 million.

We must not let the two most populous and powerful nations in the region fall under the sway of Muslim extremism, the one through the weakness of Jimmy Carter and the other through the weakness of Barack Obama.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/who-lost-egypt/

The United States cannot afford to lose Egypt, Jordan and other allies in the region. Among other things, Obama is pulling our forces out of Iraq; and a debacle is likely to follow in Afghanistan too, which seems to be a lost cause. All of this might determine the fate of Israel.

See, e.g., http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq;_ylt=Akg0dRp1i4NSyUsUi6YKt.0LewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTJkdnRuaHE2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjAxL21sX2lyYXEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDc2VuYXRlcmVwb3J0 (“American diplomats and other mission employees may not be safe in Iraq if the U.S. military leaves the volatile country at the end of the year as planned, according to a new report released [by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee]“)

As I have written:

Obama is a [fool, a] fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected (emphasis added)

Obama might tragically alter America’s history by losing the Middle East.

The Israelis are deeply and justifiably concerned. In an important article entitled, “Israel shocked by Obama’s ‘betrayal’ of Mubarak,” Reuters has reported:

If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told ministers of the Jewish state to make no comment on the political cliffhanger in Cairo, to avoid inflaming an already explosive situation. But Israel’s President Shimon Peres is not a minister.

“We always have had and still have great respect for President Mubarak,” he said on Monday. He then switched to the past tense. “I don’t say everything that he did was right, but he did one thing which all of us are thankful to him for: he kept the peace in the Middle East.”

Newspaper columnists were far more blunt.

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled “A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam.” It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, “to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president … an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?”

. . .

Obama on Sunday called for an “orderly transition” to democracy in Egypt, stopping short of calling on Mubarak to step down, but signaling that his days may be numbered.

“AMERICA HAS LOST IT”

Netanyahu instructed Israeli ambassadors in a dozen key capitals over the weekend to impress on host governments that Egypt’s stability is paramount, official sources said.

“Jordan and Saudi Arabia see the reactions in the West, how everyone is abandoning Mubarak, and this will have very serious implications,” Haaretz daily quoted one official as saying.

Egypt, Israel’s most powerful neighbor, was the first Arab country to make peace with the Jewish state, in 1979. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who signed the treaty, was assassinated two years later by an Egyptian fanatic.

It took another 13 years before King Hussein of Jordan broke Arab ranks to [make] a second peace with the Israelis. That treaty was signed by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated one year later, in 1995, by an Israeli fanatic.

There have been no peace treaties since. Lebanon and Syria are still technically at war with Israel. Conservative Gulf Arab regimes have failed to advance their peace ideas. A hostile Iran has greatly increased its influence in the Middle East conflict.

See http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-egypt-israel-usa-idUSTRE70U53720110131; see also http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110130/D9L2Q1Q00.html (“If Egypt resumes its conflict with Israel, Israelis fear, it will put a powerful Western-armed military on the side of Israel’s enemies while also weakening pro-Western states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia”)

Also, in an article captioned, “Israel Watches ‘Regional Earthquake’ in Egypt,” the Wall Street Journal has reported:

Israeli commentators depicted the crumbling of President Hosni Mubarak’s rule in Egypt as a regional earthquake, calling it the most significant Middle East event since the 1979 revolution against the Shah in Iran.

. . .

The speed at which Mr. Mubarak’s troubles escalated appeared to blindside Israeli officials, who have watched with growing alarm as protests in Cairo and other Egyptian cities swelled, endangering the grip on power of their strongest ally in the region. Inspired by a popular uprising in Tunisia, Egyptian protests swelled in a matter of days late last week. By the weekend, it was clear Mr. Mubarak’s reign was in jeopardy.

“We were caught by surprise,” said Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in New York, a few hours before Mr. Mubarak’s announcement. “The Egyptian regime seemed very strong and very stable.”

Israel has a huge stake in Egypt’s stability. The historic 1979 peace treaty between the two countries, which share a long border, is the cornerstone of a regional balance. For more than 30 years, Israel has been able to count on Egypt to refrain from siding in Arab hostilities against the Jewish state.

An unfriendly government in Egypt would deprive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of his only ally in a region that has grown more hostile toward Israel over the past several years, with the growing influence of Iran, the armed takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the rise of Hezbollah as a major political force in Lebanon, and Turkey’s tilt away from Israel and toward Syria.

Apart from geopolitical interest, Israel has economic stakes in Egyptian stability. Egyptian natural-gas supplies generate 20% to 25% of Israel’s electricity needs.

Israeli officials have said they worry that elections in Egypt could benefit Islamist groups hostile to Israel. Mr. Steinitz said Israel supports the establishment of a democracy in Egypt. But “sometimes, even democracies can lead to very negative results.” he said.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/IsraelWatchesRegionalEarthquakeinEgypt.pdf

The battle of Cairo has begun, just as battles have begun elsewhere in the Middle East. They will be ugly and brutal. When the dust settles finally, America’s “Hamlet on the Potomac”—or “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama might have lost the region, just as Carter lost Iran to Islamic fascists. The consequences will be mind-boggling.

See also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117801815760950.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs%3Dinteractive (The Wall Street Journal’s Interactive Timeline of “Regional Upheaval” in the Middle East)

Like

1 02 2011
Smilin' Jack

Your description of the situation at hand is correct. We are at a crossroads that could put us in harm’s way. Unfortunately, our president has surrounded himself with a bunch of idiots—as in “birds of a feather, flock together.”

Like

2 02 2011
Delia Hartog

In depth and impressive. Frighteningly so…..

Like

3 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It

In an important article entitled, “US response to Egypt draws criticism in Israel,” the AP has reported:

President Barack Obama’s response to the crisis in Egypt is drawing fierce criticism in Israel, where many view the U.S. leader as a political naif whose pressure on a stalwart ally to hand over power is liable to backfire.

Critics—including senior Israeli officials who have shied from saying so publicly—say Obama is repeating the same mistakes of predecessors whose calls for human rights and democracy in the Middle East have often backfired by bringing anti-West regimes to power.

Israeli officials, while refraining from open criticism of Obama, have made no secret of their view that shunning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and pushing for swift elections in Egypt could bring unintended results.

“I don’t think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into,” said lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who until recently was a Cabinet minister and who is a longtime friend of Mubarak.

“If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament,” he told Army Radio. “It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam.”

Three decades ago, President Jimmy Carter urged another staunch American ally—the shah of Iran—to loosen his grip on power, only to see his autocratic regime replaced by the Islamic Republic. More recently, U.S.-supported elections have strengthened such groups as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories and anti-American radicals in Iran.

“Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as ‘the president who lost Iran,'” the analyst Aluf Benn wrote in the daily Haaretz this week. “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled,” Benn wrote.

Israel has tremendous respect for Mubarak, who carefully honored his country’s peace agreement with Israel after taking power nearly 30 years ago.

While relations were often cool, Mubarak maintained a stable situation that has allowed Israel to greatly reduce its military spending and troop presence along the border with Egypt.

He also worked with Israel to contain the Gaza Strip’s Hamas government and served as a bridge to the broader Arab world.

. . .

In the course of the turmoil, the Obama administration has repeatedly recalibrated its posture, initially expressing confidence in Egypt’s government, later threatening to withhold U.S. aid, and lastly, pressing Mubarak to loosen his grip on power immediately.

. . .

Critics say the U.S. is once again confusing the mechanics of democracy with democracy itself.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed similar sentiments this week when he warned that “if extremist forces are allowed to exploit democratic processes to come to power to advance anti-democratic goals—as has happened in Iran and elsewhere—the outcome will be bad for peace and bad for democracy.”

So far, no unified opposition leadership or clear program for change has emerged in Egypt. Historically the leading opposition in Egypt has been the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that favors Islamic rule and has been repressed by Mubarak throughout his tenure.

Many young people see the former director of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, as Egypt’s democratic hope, but critics say he is out of touch with Egypt’s problems because he has spent so many years outside of the country.

The calls for democracy inside Egypt have put the U.S. in an awkward position of having to balance its defense for human rights with its longtime ties to an authoritarian regime that has been a crucial Arab ally.

In Israel, critics say the U.S. has suffered a credibility loss by shaking off Mubarak when his regime started crumbling.

“The Israeli concept is that the U.S. rushed to stab Mubarak in the back,” said Eytan Gilboa, an expert on the U.S. at Bar-Ilan University.

“As Israel sees it, they could have pressured Mubarak, but not in such an overt way, because the consequence could be a loss of faith in the U.S. by all pro-Western Arab states in the Middle East, and also a loss of faith in Israel,” he said.

Raphael Israeli, a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, echoed a widely felt perception that before the unrest erupted, the Obama administration paid only lip service to the lack of human rights in Mubarak’s authoritarian regime.

“If Obama were genuinely concerned with what is going on in Egypt, he should have made the same demands two years ago (when he addressed the Muslim world in Cairo) and eight years and 20 years ago. Mubarak didn’t come to power yesterday.”

See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110203/D9L59U1G0.html (emphasis added); see also http://www.economist.com/node/18065691 (“Worried Israel: Bad news for the Jewish state: Egypt’s upheaval is rattling the Israelis“)

As emphasized above, one conclusion jumps out:

Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.

Beyond that, he may be remembered as the American president who lost the Middle East, or certainly large portions of it. Again, he is an utter fool and a feckless naïf, and he must be removed from office before he can do even more damage to America and U.S. interests.

Like

4 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Barack Obama America’s Most Polarizing President Ever?

The UK’s Daily Mail has an article that expresses astonishment at the fact that Barack Obama divides the U.S. more than any second-year president in more than half a century. The article states in pertinent part:

Barack Obama was swept into power on a wave of optimism over his promise to bring America together in a new spirit of unity.

But a new poll has revealed that he divided the country down the middle more than any other second-year US president in more than half a century.

Astonishingly, Mr Obama’s second year in office was even more polarising than his White House predecessor George Bush.

Critics blamed Mr Obama’s determination to push through healthcare reforms and his administration’s big spending attempts to dig the US out of the financial crisis as two of the biggest issues that have split American opinion.

According to figures released by Gallup, Mr Obama’s popularity in 2010 was even more polarised than they were during his first year, measuring a 68-point gap between the percentage of Democrats and Republicans that approve of the president.

An average of 81 per cent of Democrats approved of the job Mr Obama was doing last year, compared to just 13 per cent of Republicans.

The 68-point divide is up from a 65-point gap in 2009, which was also a record for a first-year president.

Despite all his talk of bringing America’s two main political parties closer together, Mr Obama’s rock bottom 13 per cent approval from Republicans is easily the lowest percentage of support from an opposing party for any president in his second year.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353753/Obama-divides-U-S-second-year-president-half-century.html and http://www.gallup.com/poll/145937/Obama-Approval-Ratings-Polarized-Year-Year.aspx (Gallup poll results); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1180 (“George W. Bush’s Memoir Sells 2 Million Copies In A Month, Nearly As Many As Bill Clinton’s Sold In Six Years”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1075 (“Bush Job Approval Rating Higher Than Obama’s”)

Neither the writer of the article nor the Daily Mail should be “astonished” in the least about what has happened to Barack Obama. In fact, such astonishment reflects enormous naïveté about U.S. politics and the American people.

The high-water mark of the Obama presidency was reached when Congress passed his signature health care legislation, “ObamaCare.” A U.S. federal court has just struck down that law in its entirety; and Congress is moving to repeal it as well.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1360 (“ObamaCare May Be History, And Barack Obama May Be Too”)

Obama is a fool and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history.

If he loses Egypt and other countries of the Middle East to Islamic fascism, and the American economy continues to decline, and he loses the Afghan War, he will have changed history, for the worse.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1357 (“Will Barack Obama Go Down In History As The President Who Lost The Middle East?”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1368 (“Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1336 (“SHOCK CLAIM: Hawaii Governor Admits There Are No Obama Birth Records In Hawaii”)

Lastly, racism is not what has turned off so many Americans. On the contrary, Obama is a far-left president in a center-right country; and he was “packaged” before the 2008 elections as a moderate, which was fraud. Those who voted for him are increasingly having “buyer’s remorse,” and this is especially true of Independents—who comprise approximately 35 percent of American voters—and members of the Tea Party movement, and “disenchanted” Democrats. These three groups, plus Republicans, may seal Obama’s political fate as the 2012 elections approach.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/

Like

5 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED!

“WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets”


HMS Vanguard

This is the title of the UK Telegraph’s article—subtitled, “The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose”—which states:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

. . .

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today.

. . .

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#

Obama must be impeached, now!

He needs to be dumped before the next election. The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives must begin investigations immediately, laying the basis for the impeachment process.

Russia’s dictator-for-life Putin is our enemy, and cutting any deals with him is equivalent to cutting deals with Adolf Hitler before or during World War II.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/russias-putin-is-a-killer/

Obama is a traitor. We have always known that!

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1357 (“Will Barack Obama Go Down In History As The President Who Lost The Middle East?”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1247 (“Obama Trashes Pentagon, And Must Be Impeached!”)

Also, his hatred for the British seems to know no bounds. In his book, “Dreams from My Father,” he set forth his core beliefs, which I have discussed at length in an article. For example:

In Kenya, his alienation is reflected once again when he characterizes other tourists as expressing “a confidence reserved for those born into imperial cultures.” Also, throughout the book, he expresses his intense dislike for “colonialism,” which is perhaps summarized by his thoughts as he rides a train and imagines how a British officer might have felt on its maiden voyage: “Would he have felt a sense of triumph, a confidence that the guiding light of Western civilization had finally penetrated the African darkness? Or did he feel a sense of foreboding, a sudden realization that the entire enterprise was an act of folly, that this land and its people would outlast imperial dreams?”

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Like

5 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Barack Obama Becoming A Handmaiden To Islamic Fascists?

It is a given that Obama is a cowardly demagogue. For example, he failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election. The government of Iran is America’s enemy. Egypt’s Mubarak has been our ally, whom Obama has been “throwing under the bus”—which the Israelis understand fully, and watch with dismay and revulsion.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1367 (“Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It”)

The Brits—another staunch ally—are outraged that Obama has agreed to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets. The UK’s Telegraph has reported that Obama secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information about Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign the New START Treaty, which is traitorous and an impeachable offense.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1383

The battle of Cairo has begun, just as battles have begun elsewhere in the Middle East. They will be ugly and brutal. When the dust settles finally, America’s far-Left, naïve, anti-war, narcissistic president—our “Hamlet on the Potomac” or “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama might have lost not just Egypt but the entire region, just as Carter lost Iran to Islamic fascists. The consequences will be mind-boggling.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1357; see also http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4f6d274f3aeb88a025c7211f3b0a1ee7.3b1&show_article=1 (“Jordan will sooner or later be the target of an uprising similar to the ones in Tunisia and Egypt”)

Obama is a fool and a feckless naïf, who is pulling out of Iraq completely. His policies are leading to the utter failure of his Afghan War; and it is simply a matter of time before he cuts and runs from there as well. As shrewd as Hillary and Bill Clinton can be at times, they seem to miss the fact that we may be in the midst of “The Clash of Civilizations” that Samuel P. Huntington wrote about—which Richard Nixon worried about.

See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations; but see http://www.economist.com/node/18063852 (“[George W.] Bush was . . . a far more active champion of democracy than Mr Obama has been. . . . [T]he experts who scoffed at Mr Bush for thinking that Arabs wanted and were ready for democracy on the Western model are suddenly looking less clever—and Mr Bush’s simple and rather wonderful notion that Arabs want, deserve and are capable of democracy is looking rather wise”)

Islamic fascists find democratic movements and democracies abhorrent to them; and they are outwitting Obama at every turn, and making him into their handmaiden.

In an important Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Could al Qaeda Hijack Egypt’s Revolution?”—and subtitled, “Terrorists in Pakistan and mullahs in Tehran want to see chaos in Cairo. A splintered army and premature elections would help their cause”—Kenneth M. Pollack writes:

It is the nature of revolutions to be entirely unpredictable. Most fail, and even those that succeed often follow paths that no one foresaw—not their targets, not their protagonists, not the partisans on any side.

. . .

The uprising in Egypt is far from over, and neither is America’s necessary role. We must work to guard against the worst outcomes, which may seem remote but are all too likely in the unpredictable maelstrom of revolution:

The disintegration of the Egyptian army. Though hardly a paragon of democratic virtue, the army is the most important institution in Egypt, and it is vital to a peaceful transition to a moderate form of government. If the army fractures, Egypt will descend into chaos.

U.S. officials don’t know how loyal the army’s senior officers feel toward Hosni Mubarak, nor how sympathetic the enlisted men feel toward the protesters in Tahrir Square. Nor do we know where the loyalties of middle-ranking officers lie, but it is not hard to imagine that they are caught betwixt and between. At some point that no one will recognize until after the fact, the military may lose its cohesion and its ability to act on anyone’s behalf.

Thus the U.S. must maintain its extensive ties with Egypt’s soldiery, bolster their spirits, and encourage them to act as the impartial guardians of their country’s orderly transition. It’s imperative that the U.S. help Egypt past its current deadlock before divided loyalties tear apart the army.

Premature elections. If there is a need for a speedy resolution to the present impasse, the answer should not be an accelerated move to new elections. Where elections are concerned, speed kills.

Elections are an important element of democracy, but they are not synonymous with democracy. Few things can do more harm to a nascent democracy than premature elections.

. . .

Egypt is not ready to have good elections. It needs a new constitution and time for viable political leaders to establish parties, something the Mubarak regime prevented for 30 years. It is an open question whether eight months will be enough, but advancing that timetable would be incredibly reckless.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood likely represents only a minority of Egyptians, it probably would dominate any early elections. It is the only true mass party in Egypt, well-organized and disciplined, with a well-known track record and a well-understood political platform.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not al Qaeda, and it might provide reasonable leadership of a new government. But perhaps not. We simply don’t know, because Mr. Mubarak never allowed the Brotherhood any meaningful degree of participation in politics, so it never had to show its true colors.

It could be disastrous if the Brotherhood got to pick the next president of Egypt simply because it was the only organized party when elections were held.

A reprise of Lenin’s 1917 train ride into the Russian Revolution. Whatever our concerns about it, the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially the “Menshevik” faction of the Egyptian revolution. It espouses a moderate version of an ideology common among the Egyptian opposition and other Arab opposition movements, and it says it is willing to live and work within the constraints of a democratic system.

But revolutions often get hijacked by equivalents of the “Bolsheviks,” extremists who previously seemed so marginalized that they could never pose a real threat. The “Bolsheviks” of the Egyptian revolution are sitting in caves in Pakistan. They are the Salafist extremists of Ayman Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other groups that sought to bring about an Egyptian revolution throughout the 1990s. They waged a vicious terrorist campaign to try to do so and were ultimately driven from the country and into the arms of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, where they became one of its dominant factions.

We should not doubt that when Zawahiri and his cohorts heard the news from Tahrir Square, they were probably jubilant that the revolution they had sought for so long had begun. They were likely also frustrated that they were not there to hijack it and lead it toward the radical Islamist state they seek. Zawahiri is probably doing whatever he can to play catch-up—to dispatch his supporters to Egypt to take control of the revolution.

The Iranian regime is also gleeful about the collapse of Mr. Mubarak, one of America’s most important Arab allies and one of Tehran’s most passionate enemies. Iran’s mullahs often see opportunity in chaos and violence, believing that anything that disrupts the region’s American-backed status quo works to their advantage. Witness their various efforts over the years in Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Bahrain.

Tehran may have already concluded that turmoil in Egypt suits its interests far more than any successful transition to stable democracy. Turmoil, after all, might prevent a new American ally from emerging and enhance the chances that Egypt’s new regime is more radical and friendly toward Iran. All of this gives Iran and al Qaeda common interests that may drive them toward tacit cooperation—with the goal of fomenting a modern Bolshevik Revolution.

In 1917, the Kaiser’s Germany famously arranged a train to take Vladimir Lenin from his exile in Switzerland across Germany to Russia. Berlin knew that Lenin was a wild radical who wished no good for Germany either, but it facilitated his entry into the Russian Revolution because it hoped he would make the situation worse and accelerate the collapse of the Russian state. It’s a model that could hold great appeal for Tehran today.

All of this may seem unlikely, but revolutions are also unlikely events, and once that threshold is crossed, old rules about what is normal and likely go out the window. That’s why those who start revolutions are rarely those who end up in charge when the smoke clears and the barricades come down. And it’s why the U.S., as Egypt’s friend and ally, must try to prevent a revolution made in the name of democracy from being hijacked by something much worse.

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/KennethM.Pollack-CouldalQaedaHijackEgyptsRevolution.pdf; see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703313304576132362771119834.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond (“In the Desert, a Tourist Drought”)

Like

12 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Collapse Of The Mubarak Regime, Wholly Unexpected A Month Ago, May Constitute A Precursor Of What Is To Come Elsewhere In The Middle East

Which countries are next? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Israel? Where this stops, no one knows.

For those who think that it might never happen in Israel, the following comments—from an article in the UK’s Economist—are sobering:

[S]ome Israelis ask whether Palestinian police units—or Israeli security forces, for that matter—would really crush a mass democracy movement live on world television, after Egypt’s powerful army has set a precedent of forbearance.

. . .

[C]ould [Israel] win against masses of peaceful protesters in town squares across the West Bank, Gaza and Israel too, demanding political rights for Palestinians? It is a question that makes many Israelis queasy.

See http://www.economist.com/node/18065691 (“Worried Israel: Bad news for the Jewish state: Egypt’s upheaval is rattling the Israelis“); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1367 (“Obama Is A Fool And A Political Naïf, And The Israelis Recognize It”) and http://af.reuters.com/article/tunisiaNews/idAFLDE71C0KP20110213?sp=true (“Gaddafi tells Palestinians: revolt against Israel”)

Will the Jewish state be the next to fall—or among the next?

Another crucial question to ask is whether Barack Obama is the handmaiden of Islamic fascists, and whether he is facilitating the fall of America’s allies in the Middle East like dominoes?

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1385

With respect to Israel, it bears repeating that I am forever reminded of what a prominent American (who is a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel) told me a number of years ago:

I have long thought that Israel will not make it, if only because of what are cavalierly called WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and its very tight geographical compression. All else is immaterial, including the Palestinians, or us, or the nature of Israel’s [government].

I was stunned by this person’s words, and I have reflected on them many times since. I have always assumed that Israel would be attacked from outside of “Palestine,” but not from within.

. . .

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal states:

Political Islam is so 1979—nowhere more so than in Iran, where an opposition rose up two years ago with the same demands as the Egyptians, only to fail amid a ruthless and violent government crackdown. Egypt’s revolt should inspire the Iranians anew. . .

However, one must never forget that America’s far-Left, naïve, anti-war, narcissistic president—“Hamlet on the Potomac” or “Jimmy Carter-lite”—Barack Obama failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election.

Even worse, he coddled and gave comfort to America’s enemies, the brutal theocratic regime in that country. The Journal was guarded and too kind when it described his conduct as an “embarrassing silence.” It was nothing short of cruel; and he may have “signed” the death sentences of courageous Iranian protesters—but this is true of other uncaring, raving narcissists like Obama.

See, e.g., http://www.naegele.com/documents/IranianCrackdownGoesGlobal.pdf (“Iranian Crackdown Goes Global”) and http://www.naegele.com/documents/PresidentObamaSnubsIransDemocrats.pdf (“The President Snubs Iran’s Democrats”) and http://www.naegele.com/documents/Iransentences5todeathinpostelectionturmoil.pdf (“Iran sentences 5 to death in postelection turmoil”) and http://www.naegele.com/documents/IranianProtestersSentencedtoDeath.pdf (“An Alternative Nobel”)

For example, one Journal article—dated November 3, 2009—stated:

[C]ourageous and dignified overtures to the U.S. by [Iranian] Green Movement activists have been snubbed by the Obama administration. The administration has avoided discussion about the prospects for liberalization in a country that exports radical Islamist ideology throughout the Middle East and beyond. In regressive realpolitik fashion, it has grown increasingly reticent about the Iranian people’s struggle for human rights, apparently viewing it as irrelevant to U.S security interests. Rather than bolstering the opposition at a time when the Iranian regime is at its weakest, America is pursuing a policy of appeasement.

. . .

Iranian cyberspace is brimming with anger at what the Green Movement sees as betrayal by the West. From legendary filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi’s representative in Europe, to Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, Iranian democrats are expressing disappointment at what they see as the trading of their democratic aspirations for dubious progress toward the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran.

“Engagement,” it turns out, is about nuclear weapons alone—no matter how many innocent Iranians are being beaten, tortured, raped and killed for expressing their hope for change.

. . .

Can the Obama administration achieve anything with Ahmadinejad’s cabal on the nuclear front that could possibly justify its betrayal of the Iranian people and American values?

See http://www.naegele.com/documents/PresidentObamaSnubsIransDemocrats.pdf

Also, the four articles cited immediately above stated: (1) the regime cracked down hard at home, and a Wall Street Journal investigation showed that it extended that crackdown to many of the 4 million Iranians living abroad as well; (2) Obama’s “engagement” with Iran was about nuclear weapons alone, no matter how many innocent Iranians were being beaten, tortured, raped and killed for expressing their hope for change; (3) the Iranian courts sentenced at least 89 defendants and 81 of them got prison terms ranging from six months up to 15 years; (4) the Obama Administration downplayed human rights in Iran as it pursued a negotiated nuclear settlement with the Ahmadinejad government; and (5) forgotten—at least by Barack Obama—is 27-year old Neda Aga Soltan, whose murder in June of 2009 by one of Ahmadinejad’s goon squads was captured on a video seen around the world.

. . .

In the final analysis, what is happening in Egypt and elsewhere may be another vindication of George W. Bush. Indeed, the Journal added:

This is also a day to note that George W. Bush was the President who broke with the foreign policy establishment and declared that Arabs deserved political freedom as much as the rest of the world. He was reviled for it by many of the same pundits who are now claiming solidarity with Egyptians in the streets.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132281877448852.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop; see also http://www.economist.com/node/18063852 (“[George W.] Bush was . . . a far more active champion of democracy than Mr Obama has been. . . . [T]he experts who scoffed at Mr Bush for thinking that Arabs wanted and were ready for democracy on the Western model are suddenly looking less clever—and Mr Bush’s simple and rather wonderful notion that Arabs want, deserve and are capable of democracy is looking rather wise”) and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030304239.html (“[R]evolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda”)

Like

12 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

OBAMA IS A FOOL!

Obama in cowboy hat

He has compared himself with Ronald Reagan, by referring to himself as “The Gipper”—which is the moral equivalent of comparing Adolf Hitler favorably with Mother Teresa.

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/11/obama_refers_to_himself_as_the_gipper_in_farewell_to_gibbs.html

Another fool—who fancied being the president too—was Mike Dukakis who ran against George H.W. Bush in 1988, and was “destroyed” by him electorally. Hopefully the same thing happens to Obama between now and the 2012 elections.

Dukakis in tank

Like

14 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is The Rift Widening Between Obama And Hillary?

Hillary and Bill Clinton fought hard to defeat Barack Obama in 2008, and there was no love lost between their respective political camps.

Among others, political pundit and former adviser to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, has suggested that when the timing is right, the Clintons will strike at Obama again—in all likelihood, before the 2012 primary elections.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-may-face-left-wing-primary/; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected, footnote 10.

It has been reported that Obama was “furious” with Hillary’s State Department over Egypt, and that they undercut him at every turn.

See http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-clinton-egypt-policy/2011/02/13/id/385923?s and http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/world/middleeast/13diplomacy.html (“Obama was furious, and it did not help that his secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton . . . was publicly warning that any credible transition would take time—even as Mr. Obama was demanding that change in Egypt begin right away”)

This might be a preview of what is to come as the 2012 primaries and general election approach. Obama and the Clintons may become overt political enemies again.

Like

17 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Middle East Is On Fire Again, And Crazy Muslims With Funny Names Aren’t Helping Things—. . . Barack . . .

This is the first paragraph of Ann Coulter’s latest column entitled, “Democrats: Emboldening America’s Enemies & Terrifying Her Allies Since 1976,” which added:

The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?

Remember? The one who had gassed his own people, invaded his neighbors and was desperately seeking weapons of mass destruction?

. . .

Liberals couldn’t have been less interested in removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq.

. . .

Liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as a proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down. Did they, by any chance, see the January employment numbers for the United States?

. . .

You know another country where Obama wasn’t interested in democracy? (I mean, besides the U.S. when it comes to health care reform?) That’s right—Iran.

. . .

When peaceful Iranian students were protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stolen election in 2009, we didn’t hear a peep out of Obama. The students had good reason to believe the election had been rigged. In some pro-Ahmadinejad districts, turnout was more than 100 percent.

Wait, no, I’m sorry—that was Al Franken’s election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But there was also plenty of vote-stealing in Ahmadinejad’s election.

When it came to Iran, however, the flame of democracy didn’t burn so brightly in liberal hearts. Even when the Iranian protester, Neda [Aga Soltan], was shot dead while standing peacefully on a street in Tehran, Obama responded by . . . going out for an ice cream cone.

But a mob of Egyptians start decapitating mummies, and Obama was on the horn telling Mubarak he had to leave. Obama didn’t acknowledge Neda’s existence, but the moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama said, “We hear your voices.”

. . .

The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt, but not in Iraq or Iran, can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as we’re on the subject, liberals also opposed democracy in Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua and Minnesota.)

Democrats are all for meddling in other countries—but only provided a change of regime will harm U.S. national security interests.

Time and again, Democrats’ fecklessness has emboldened America’s enemies and terrified its allies. . . .

For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation’s enemies, attacked America’s allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, “foreign policy.”

As Joe McCarthy once said, if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America’s interests.

See http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41848; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1408

Like

17 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

OBAMA’S AFGHAN WAR IS OVER, AND HE HAS LOST IT TO AMERICA’S ENEMIES

General David Petraeus

In an article entitled, “US faces exodus of top Afghanistan team”—and subtitled, “The US faces the loss of four senior members of its Afghanistan team in coming months, leaving President Barack Obama with a gaping lack of experience as the conflict enters a critical phase and the public expects a withdrawal of troops to start”—the UK’s Telegraph has reported:

The long-running conflict has placed unforeseen demands on the human resources of the US administration and several senior people are reaching the end of gruelling tours. Mr Obama will in coming months have to find replacements for Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Kabul, and Gen David Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who also served under George W Bush, could also be heading for the exit, though pressure is likely to increase on him to stay for the duration of Mr Obama’s first term in office.

In addition, Adm Mike Mullen’s four-year term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ends in September and Marc Grossman, a retired diplomat, has just replaced the late Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to the region.

The length of the war, now in its tenth year, has exposed a shortage in Washington of people with experience or expertise in South Asia who have not already served long tours. Mr Obama therefore is confronted with a considerable challenge of finding the right people to continue his strategy of heavy US troop involvement in trouble spots such as Helmand while preparing the Afghan security forces to take charge by 2014.

Gen Petraeus only took up his current position in June last year when Mr Obama fired Gen Stanley McChrystal for making unflattering remarks about the administration during a magazine interview.

But he has already served multiple tours in Iraq and is a leading candidate to replace Adm Mullen. Stepping down in the autumn would at least allow Gen Petraeus to oversee the start of a planned troop withdrawal in July which Mr Obama has promised to Americans.

There are only a handful of suitable candidates to replace Gen Petraeus, and none is regarded as a match for his combination of battle experience, intellect or the public relations skills required for the job.

The four-star general is widely credited in Washington for his role in salvaging the war in Iraq when he took over as commander in 2007, and many Republicans view him as a hero and possible presidential material. The 2012 campaign appears to have to come too late for those ambitions, however.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8329079/US-faces-exodus-of-top-Afghanistan-team.html

First, like Jimmy Carter before him, Obama’s first term in office will be his only term in office. He is finished as America’s “Community-Organizer-In-Chief,” and will return to either Chicago or Hawaii permanently in January of 2013—at the latest—to lick his political wounds, write his memoirs, and work on his presidential library.

Second, “victory” is a word that Obama has never used with respect to his Afghan War; and like the North Vietnamese before them, the Taliban may begin using that term in the not-too-distant future. Obama’s Afghan War is lost, and the Taliban have won it, and Afghan women will pay a horrible price in the process.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1102

Third, if the speculation is true, David Petraeus will have “escaped” with his reputation intact, to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which will be his reward for “rescuing” Obama from the McChrystal debacle—unless, of course, Obama blows the Petraeus appointment too.

Fourth, McChrystal is rumored to have a book coming out shortly before the 2012 elections, which may “fry” Obama politically.

Lastly, I have been told by a foreign policy “legend”:

That war was lost when we decided to invade. It was tailor-made for special forces, which we did at the beginning. . . . But [George W.] Bush decided revenge[, which] required a full scale invasion. Big mistake. As Mubarak [said] at the time, the situation required Muslim troops only, no US or other Western European nations. Bad call from Day One which means, in my judgment, ineluctable defeat.

Like

22 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Goal Of A Global Caliphate . . . And Barack Obama’s Reticence To Fight It

Arnaud de Borchgrave—editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International—has written another excellent and very sobering article entitled, “Gullible amnesia,” which is worth reading and reflecting on. In it, he states in pertinent part:

Jihad has a global strategy beyond self-defense—attack every “infidel rule” to widen the global caliphate until all mankind lives under the Islamic flag.

. . .

“The Yuppie Revolution in Egypt is Over, the Islamist Revolution Has Begun,” captured the essence of Egypt’s 18-day upheaval.

See http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/de-Borchgrave/2011/02/22/Commentary-Gullible-amnesia/UPI-47511298374510/

Because of the Muslim influence during Obama’s formative years when he was growing up in Indonesia, one wonders whether he has the will, determination and capacity to fight against a regional—much less a global—caliphate on behalf of the American people. Or is he merely a handmaiden of Islamic fascists, and a useful “tool” for them?

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1385

Like

24 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

China’s Jasmine Crackdown

Obama is an utter buffoon, who will not be reelected.

Why is he silent when the forces of democracy are moving in China—like he was silent and failed to come to the aid of those courageous Iranians who were tortured and killed after rising up in protest against the disputed victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election?

See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4fcf4e6-3f6d-11e0-a1ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EpwDexBl (“Nervous China puts security apparatus into overdrive“) and http://www.theworld.org/2011/02/22/china%E2%80%99s-jasmine-crackdown/ (“China’s Jasmine crackdown“) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That“) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1406 (“The Collapse Of The Mubarak Regime, Wholly Unexpected A Month Ago, May Constitute A Precursor Of What Is To Come Elsewhere In The Middle East“) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1445 (“The Goal Of A Global Caliphate . . . And Barack Obama’s Reticence To Fight It“)

Like

11 05 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

These People Are Lowlifes

In an article entitled,”Michelle Obama welcomes rapper to White House who called for burning of George Bush,” the UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr, who uses the stage name ‘Common’, will be welcomed at an event celebrating American poetry on Wednesday.

He is expected to take part in rap workshops with schoolchildren in the afternoon before performing in the evening.

In footage on YouTube he is seen calling for the burning of the former president.

‘Burn a Bush cos for peace he no push no button,’ the hip-hop artist raps in one video, which has more than 800,000 views.

Other song lyrics reportedly include threats to shoot the police.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385334/Michelle-Obama-welcomes-rapper-Common-called-burning-George-Bush.html

What scum!

As one American commenter noted:

These people have no shame. I guess they’re enjoying it while they can, because they’ve got just over a year and a half left before they have to pack up and move. I just hope our country holds together until then . . .

Amen in spades. The police are outraged too, and justifiably so—but this is who the Obamas are!

See, e.g., http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NJ-State-Police-Outraged-Over-Rapper-Invited-to-White-House-121596869.html (“NJ State Police ‘Outraged’ Over Rapper Invite to White House“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386032/Outrage-Michelle-Obama-welcomes-rapper-Common-White-House.html (“Obama joins Michelle at racially charged White House reception for rapper who praised Black Panther cop killer and singer who condemned mixed race marriages“); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”)

Anyone who does not realize that down deep Barack and Michelle Obama are racists has never read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” nor understood their genuine affinity and affection for their former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright—at least until they threw him “under the bus” politically. It is who they are; their core beliefs and essence.

Like

20 06 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s ACORN Is History

The Associated Press has reported:

The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes, over being banned from getting federal funds.

The high court on Monday refused to review a federal court’s decision to uphold Congress’s ban on federal funds for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Congress cut off ACORN’s federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.

ACORN sued, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the action. The high court refused to hear its appeal.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_acorn_lawsuit; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The next step will be to send Obama to Chicago or Hawaii no later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his presidential library. For the good of the country, it cannot happen fast enough!

Like

10 08 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Is Race A Factor In My Comments About Barack Obama and Tiger Woods?

First, as I have said and written:

I believe in this country, and I believe in Americans of all colors, faiths and backgrounds. The United States is the only true melting pot in the world, with its populace representing a United Nations of the world’s peoples. Yes, we fight and we even discriminate, but when times are tough—like after 9/11—we come together as one nation, which makes this country so great and special. Also, all of us or our ancestors came here from somewhere else. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists.

See http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/ (Interview with Timothy D. Naegele: “Greenspan’s legacy: more suffering to come”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”); see also http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/2951-ilene/31177-interview-with-timothy-d-naegele

Second, race is still an issue in our society, and discrimination exists; and neither Woods nor Obama have changed that fact. One would be very naïve to think otherwise. However, both Woods and Obama have taken giant steps to tear down the color barriers that had existed, just as others before them had done.

Third, if anyone thinks that African-Americans who voted for Obama overwhelmingly in 2008 will not be upset—and, indeed, angry—if he is not reelected, such a person is naïve and knows essentially nothing about race relations and national politics in the United States today.

Fourth, many African-American women are very sensitive about African-American men who do not date and/or marry African-American women. This is a fact. Because Woods seems never to have dated an African-American woman, African-American women are not likely to defend him or come to his aid if the scandals swirling about him intensify even more.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/is-redemption-possible-for-tiger-woods/ (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

This is not present in the case of Barack Obama. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that he is happily married to his wife, Michelle, who is a very strong-willed and talented African-American woman.

Fifth, my favorite golfer for many years has been Vijay Singh, who is “blacker” than Woods and Obama in terms of his skin color. Indeed, my only regret is that Singh has not beaten Woods in their every encounter. If anyone has followed Singh around at tournaments and/or talked with those who know him well, they will realize that he is personable and well-liked, and not arrogant, aloof and unbearingly narcissistic like Woods. Also, the scandals that have surrounded and hounded Woods (e.g., prostitutes, doping)—and have brought shame to him, and hurt the young kids who revered him as a hero—have not blemished Singh.

Sixth, I have very definite and deep-seated substantive, philosophical and political differences with Obama, which I have not been timid or defensive in writing about. I never realized the depth of these differences until I read and analyzed his book, “Dreams from My Father” twice after he was elected in 2008. These differences have become greater, much greater, as his presidency has unfolded.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/ (“Barack Obama Is A Lame-Duck President Who Will Not Be Reelected”) (see also the footnotes and all of the comments beneath both articles)

Seventh, some people have suggested that the level of hatred towards Woods would be much less if we did not have a president who is half African-American, and a country with serious economic problems. However, the linkage between Woods and Obama is almost nonexistent. Among other things, Woods’ “accident” in Florida that triggered his “bimbo eruption” and subsequent divorce occurred in late November of 2009, when Obama was still very popular. Indeed, essentially all of the facts about Woods’ prostitutes and bimbos came out while Obama remained popular.

Lastly, I am very proud of the federal housing laws that I authored on behalf of Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). They included the “Brooke Amendment” relating to public housing; and the national “Housing Allowance” program, which morphed into the Section 8 housing program that has helped millions of African-Americans and others.

Brooke was the first African-American to serve in the U.S. Senate following Reconstruction at the end of the American Civil War; Barack Obama was the third. As a young attorney, I staffed Senator Brooke on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the United States Senate; and I served as chief of staff to the senator during his re-election campaign of 1972.

Also, on behalf of Senator Brooke, I established a summer program for disadvantaged kids in Massachusetts, in conjunction with the Pentagon, which involved underutilized military facilities within the State (e.g., the Boston Navy Yard, Otis Air Force Base) and served approximately 100,000 kids during its first year alone.

See http://www.naegele.com/naegele_resume.html

On most issues, I was politically in tune with Senator Brooke; I am not with Barack Obama at all.

Like

12 08 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

What A Vile Man Barack Obama’s Father Turns Out To Have Been: A Drunken, Wife-Beating, Bribe-Taking Bigamist Of Extreme Arrogance, Who Spent Much Of His Life Propping Up Bars While Bemoaning His Fate And Running Down Rivals

This is one of many conclusions reached about Barack Obama’s father, which appear in the UK Daily Mail’s review of a new book about the father entitled, “The Other Barack” by Sally H. Jacobs.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2024819/Barack-Obamas-father-Bigamist-drunk-wife-beater.html

They are consistent with Barack Obama’s own assessment of his father, which are set forth in the article above:

It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself. . . . Now, . . . that image had suddenly vanished. Replaced by . . . what? A bitter drunk? An abusive husband? A defeated, lonely bureaucrat? To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost! . . . Whatever I do, it seems, I won’t do much worse than he did.

Yet, by doing enormous damage to the American nation and hurting its people, he has done far worse than his father ever did. Indeed, the tragedy continues with Barack Obama in the White House.

The son—America’s narcissistic “Hamlet on the Potomac” and “Jimmy Carter-lite”—grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Southern California. Like his father before him, he admitted in his own book, “Dreams from My Father,” that he came close to getting hooked on the illegal drugs he was taking. For example, he wrote: “Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man.”

Obama will not be reelected next year, and instead he will be retreat either to Chicago or Hawaii no later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his presidential library. It cannot happen fast enough, for the good of the United States and the American people!

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-1778 (see also the article itself, as well as the footnotes and other comments beneath it)

Like

23 09 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Is A Hypocrite, A Demagogue, and a Raving Unprincipled Narcissist

Obama=not a clue

As the UK’s Financial Times has underscored:

Exactly a year ago this week, President Barack Obama stood at the podium at the UN General Assembly and declared his support for a Palestinian state.

“Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state,” Mr Obama told the general assembly, unless the two parties reached a peace agreement.

So it will be some degree of awkwardness that Mr Obama returns to the UN this week and directs his representatives to vote against a plan that would lead to Palestinians achieving that exact destination. . . .

Indeed, the US president will be acutely aware how hypocritical he must appear: voicing support for democratic transitions across the Middle East at the same time as scuppering Palestinian aspirations for recognition. Mr Obama hardly wants to be seen as being on the wrong side of the change sweeping through the Arab world.

Palestinian leaders this week plan to make a bid for full membership of the UN, a move that would officially make it a state, Palestine, on an equal footing with Israel. But the US has explicitly stated that it will use its veto power through the Security Council to block any such move.

. . .

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to the US and part of the ruling family, last week warned that an American veto would end the allies’ “special relationship” and would make the US “toxic” in the Arab world.

Blocking the move would also undercut the US’s authority as a genuine mediator in the peace process that Mr Obama has only half-heartedly pursued since taking office.

See http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0e21ea0a-dfe2-11e0-a820-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YLoV5Mjk; see also http://www.naegele.com/documents/PalestinianOptionsatUNLeadtoLegalThreattoIsraelsMilitary.pdf (“Palestinian Options at U.N. Lead to Legal Threat to Israel’s Military”)

What is clear from this and so many other examples like it is that Obama is a fool, a fad and a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who will be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history—unless he tragically alters the course of American history.

His naïveté is matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter. Indeed, it is likely that his presidency will be considered a sad and tragic watershed in history; and the American people are recognizing this more and more with each day that passes.

He must be sent packing either to Chicago or Hawaii not later than January of 2013, to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his golf scores and his presidential library. It cannot happen fast enough, for the good of the world, the United States and the American people, before he does even more damage!

See also http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-20/poll-economy-obama/50483094/1?loc=interstitialskip (“Poll: Economic pessimism deepens, and more blame Obama”) and http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/23/morgan-freeman-obama-has-made-racism-worse-tea-party-will-do-whatever#ixzz1YnWDliVr (“Morgan Freeman: Obama Made Racism Worse”)

Like

3 10 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Under Barack Obama, Poverty Among Blacks Has Reached Record Levels, At The Very Least Destabilizing The Black Middle Class

Time Magazine has an article by Steven Gray, a Washington Correspondent for the magazine and its former Detroit bureau chief, which is worth reading because of the writer’s apparent disillusionment with Obama.

Among other things, he concluded:

[O]n the watch of the first African American president, poverty among blacks has reached record levels, potentially, permanently, destabilizing the black middle class. . . . [A]ny President should be concerned that such a large subset of the population is falling into the abyss.

See http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/03/a-tale-of-two-speeches-is-obama-closeting-americas-black-experience/

This article mirrors the writer’s naïveté. Barack Obama is black when it suits him, and white at all other times; and what is happening to the black middle class is happening on his watch. At best, the writer is being charitable.

For openers, look at the number of white male advisers who surround Obama at the White House, and then look for any people of color who hold these very top positions. The name “White” House has defined his presidency since the very beginning . . . and indeed, since the beginning of his runs for elective offices (e.g., David Axelrod, David Plouffe).

Down deep Obama is conflicted. Just read his book, “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there in black and white.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Obama is a racist and a bigot; and he is anti-Israel. Put succinctly, he is a raving narcissist and a demagogue; and he speaks out of all sides of his mouth. He and he alone is the center of his universe.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/ (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)

Barack Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for blacks and whites, which is among the many reasons why his presidency will end no later than January of 2013, when he retreats either to Chicago or Hawaii to lick his political wounds and write his memoirs, and work full time on his golf scores and his presidential library.

It cannot happen fast enough, for the good of the United States and all Americans!

Like

2 05 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama’s Girlfriends Were Boiled Down To One “Composite” In His Book

At least this is the assertion being made today.

See http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/05/obama-ny-girlfriend-was-composite-character-122272.html and http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/06/young-barack-obama-in-love-david-maraniss

Where are his friends and former lovers and college classmates and those with whom he smoked pot and took other drugs?

How could he afford to pay for Occidental College in Los Angeles and Columbia University in New York City and his apartments, travels, food to eat, drugs and everything else? Money does not fall out of the sky.

These are among the vast number of unanswered questions about him.

. . .

One interesting comment by Obama, which appears in a letter quoted in the Vanity Fair article cited above:

[T]here’s a certain kind of conservatism which I respect more than bourgeois liberalism. . . .

Some Liberals argue that he has governed like a Republican (e.g., broadening the war in Afghanistan), while conservatives take an entirely opposite position.

Like

7 05 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

OBAMA PLAYS THE RACE CARD

Obama, racist

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

George Zimmerman’s father says he was shocked to see ‘hate’ coming from President Obama and other public figures after his son killed Trayvon Martin last month.

The 64-year-old Vietnam veteran and retired magistrate judge said his family has received ‘thousands’ of death threats and become the targets of overwhelming public vitriol in the aftermath of the shooting in Sanford, Florida.

Robert Zimmerman defended his son’s actions and claimed he was left no choice but to open fire after Trayvon told him ‘you’re going to die tonight’ while the unarmed 17-year-old was beating the neighborhood watch volunteer.

‘I never foresaw so much hate, coming from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP,’ Robert Zimmerman told Fox Orlando Wednesday night.

‘Every organization imaginable is trying to get notoriety from this or profit in some way.’

Obama famously said, ‘If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,’ in his remarks about the shooting. He also called for a full investigation to ‘get to the bottom of exactly what happened’

George Zimmerman, it was revealed earlier this week, is a registered Democrat.

. . .

He described a life where his son was forced to flee his home, and he and his wife were also forced to leave theirs to hide out while the case attracts international publicity and thousands of angry protestors.

‘We, the entire family, we basically don’t have a life,’ he said.

They cannot do anything in public that includes giving their names, he said, including seeking medical care.

He called the negative attention on his family ‘unimaginable.’

‘I’m sorry all the hate that’s going around,’ he said of the anger toward his son.

Robert Zimmerman said George is ‘colorblind’ and was mentoring two black children before the shooting occurred.

He said the campaign against his son, especially from the lawyer representing Trayvon’s parents, is a smear.

‘How he is being portrayed is an absolute lie,’ he said.

Robert Zimmerman said his son, who is half-white and half-Hispanic, began following Trayvon because he didn’t recognize the boy.

He looked suspicious, he said, because he was walking in the grass behind the townhouses in the gated community [where] he lived, rather than walking in the road or on the sidewalk.

Additionally, when the 911 dispatcher that Zimmerman called told him he didn’t need to follow the teen, he didn’t go back to his car only because he wasn’t sure of the address where he had stopped and seen Trayvon, who was wearing a hoodie.

Robert Zimmerman said his son walked up the street to find a street sign so he could figure out where, exactly he was. It was then, that Trayvon approached him and attacked him, Zimmerman claims.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122245/Trayvon-Martin-case-George-Zimmermans-father-says-family-persecuted.html (“‘I never foresaw so much hate from the president': George Zimmerman’s father speaks out on his family’s ‘persecution’ after Trayvon shootings”); see also http://times247.com/articles/new-high-def-video-vindicates-zimmerman-s-account (“New High Def Video Vindicates Zimmerman’s Story”) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128392/Trayvon-Martin-case-Fears-George-Zimmerman-convicted-killing-Florida-teen.html (“Trial by lynch mob? Fears George Zimmerman is ‘already convicted’ in Trayvon Martin’s death as his family says America is ‘out for blood'”)

As I wrote in comments above:

Quite predictably, Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are playing the race card with respect to Martin and Zimmerman, which may backfire bigtime in November’s elections.

George Zimmerman, who may be half-Jewish, deserves the presumption of innocence that was never afforded to Richard Jewell.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2098 (“Trayvon Martin Protesters Ransack Store”)

Aside from (1) domestic and global economic problems, which will get much worse, and (2) national security issues, which may explode at any time (e.g., the ever-reckless Netanyahu’s attack on Iran, potentially drawing Americans into a wider war in the Middle East—and with 1.5 billion followers of Islam worldwide), the issue of (3) race will be a significant factor in November’s elections.

Obama is trying to play the race card to ignite his political base of black voters. However, Zimmerman is half-Hispanic; and Obama may lose Hispanics in the process.

There are racial tensions between blacks and Hispanics in Florida and other States already. Indeed, race relations between Hispanics—which is the larger American population group—and blacks is potentially a powder keg.

Also, Obama’s actions remind white voters that he is black and a racist—which of course he is, as set forth vividly in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” in his own words.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

. . .

Also, it is worth noting:

[I]f Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been “murdered and martyred.”

Maxine Waters would not be screaming “hate crime.”

Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been “executed.” And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.

Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.

It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night in Sanford when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.

It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.

And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in the year 2012.

Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.

But why? What did George Zimmerman, self-styled protector of his gated community, see that night from the wheel of his SUV?

He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.

Why would this raise Zimmerman’s antennae?

Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.

In some cities, 40 percent of all black males are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or have criminal records. This is not a product of white racism but of prosecutions and convictions of criminal acts.

Had Zimmerman seen a black woman or older man in his neighborhood, he likely would never have tensed up or called in.

For all the abuse he has received, Geraldo Rivera had a point.

Whenever cable TV runs hidden-camera footage of a liquor or convenience store being held up and someone behind the counter being shot, the perp[etrator] is often a black male wearing a hoodie.

Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers—about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes—one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.

The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.

Black journalists point to the racism manifest even in progressive cities, where cabs deliberately pass them by to pick up white folks down the block.

That this happens is undeniable. But, again, what is behind it?

As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has written, from January to June 2008 in New York City, 83 percent of all identified gun assailants were black and 15 percent were Hispanics.

Together, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of gun assaults.

Translated: If a cabdriver is going to be mugged or murdered in New York City by a fare, 49 times out of 50 his assailant or killer will be black or Hispanic.

Fernando Mateo of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers has told his drivers, “Profile your passengers” for your own protection. “The God’s honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these guys are blacks and Hispanics.”

Fernando Mateo is himself black and Hispanic.

To much of America’s black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante.”

Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired.

. . .

[N]ow that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?

As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.

Is this our idea of justice?

No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.

See http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50546

Sadly, there are few black leaders who are truly responsible and not exacerbating racial tensions that need to be “cooled” instead of inflamed. Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, the Congressional Black Caucus and others are fanning racial hatred, not defusing it. More demagogues are not needed; and the media—such as Piers Morgan, a Brit at CNN—is acting irresponsibly.

The real tragedy would occur if White and Hispanic America—and other ethnic and racial groups in the United States, such as Asians—were to turn against Black America in retribution, saying: “Enough is enough.” There are many minorities, not just the one that makes the most noise. Also, no one should ever underestimate the fact that violence begets more violence, which can spin out of control.

Indeed, the words of one commenter from Florida about the ransacking of a North Miami Beach Walgreens store, which I cited above, are worth repeating again:

A sizeable number of law abiding [Floridians] have a CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] and will actually start packing [such weapons]. The law even shields them from employers that threaten to terminate employees for keeping a gun in their car. So rioting won’t just be a big Lord of the Flies style bonfire party in central FL, and certainly not in Latino dominated Miami. Then we’ll have a week with 40 – 80 [Trayvon] Martins … [E]ventually the people trying to pimp a kid’s stupid mistake into an agenda will figure out that what works in Chicago or Philly or Georgetown on any given weekend won’t fly here.

Compare http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2098 (“Trayvon Martin Protesters Ransack Store“) with http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/16/Farrakhan-To-Black-College-Students-%20People-Are-Going-To-Kill-Their-Leaders-In-A-Few-Days (“Farrakhan To Black College Students: People Are Going To Kill Their Leaders In A Few Days”); see also http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/ (“Man Beaten By Mob, In Critical Condition“) and http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425 (“George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting”) and http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2012/05/beating-church-and-brambleton (“100 black teens beat white couple in Norfolk…“) and http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/100-blacks-beat-white-couple-media-buries-attack/ (“100 Blacks Beat White Couple, Media Bury Attack“) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146070/Trayvon-Martin-killing-Teenager-drugs-autopsy-finds.html (“Revealed: Dramatic pictures of Trayvon’s lifeless body from night of shooting as new evidence shows Zimmerman bleeding with ‘broken nose’ and proves teenager had DRUGS in his system when he died”) and http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852#.T7ZKkXlYsw0 (“Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman’s Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting“) and http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161 (Alan Dershowitz: “Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge . . . New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin’s killer acted in self-defense”)

Obama fanatic

Like

27 07 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is A Total Moron

Charles Krauthammer has written a fine article in the Washington Post entitled, “Did the state make you great?”:

If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

— Barack Obama, Roanoke, Va., July 13, 2012

And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.

. . . [T]he most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.

Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure—roads, bridges, schools, Internet—off which we all thrive.

Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.

. . .

Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.

The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work—the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.

. . .

Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning . . . treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own—those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.

Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy—precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-did-the-state-make-you-great/2012/07/19/gJQAbZOiwW_story.html; see also http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577551344018773450.html (“Four Little Words . . . ‘You didn’t build that'”—”[T]he president’s rare moments of candor—on free enterprise, on those who ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ on the need to ‘spread the wealth around’—are so revealing. They are a look at the real man”)

Considering the fact that Obama has never really worked in the private sector a day in his life—except briefly in New York City—he has brass cojones to make the statement set forth in the first Obama quote above. Indeed, as I have written, citing his book, “Dreams from My Father”:

[I]n New York City before he moved to Chicago for the first time, he went to work as a research assistant at a consulting house to multinational corporations, where he recalled feeling like “a spy behind enemy lines.”

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

This “spy” named Obama has no idea what most Americans go through to earn a living, much less does he have any true empathy for them. Like most politicians, he is nothing more than an empty suit—an actor, pure and simple.

His knee-jerk, far-Left, socialist “nanny state” ideas are bankrupt, just as he has been bankrupting the United States and the American people. The sooner he is gone from the White House permanently, the better off our great nation will be!

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/ and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-2189 (“Americans’ Wealth Drops 40 Percent, With Much Worse Yet To Come”)

Like

26 10 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

The Emperor’s New Clothes

Barack Obama the narcissist

In Hans Christian Andersen’s wonderful fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for an emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all”—and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.

See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fairy_tales_of_Andersen_(Paull)/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

Barack Obama is that modern-day “emperor,” and he has been exposed for all to see.

In an article entitled, “When Americans Saw the Real Obama,” the Wall Street Journal‘s Peggy Noonan has written:

We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it’s all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn’t a mystery at all.

If Cincinnati and Lake County go for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6 it will be because of what happened in Denver on Oct. 3. If Barack Obama barely scrapes through, if there’s a bloody and prolonged recount, it too will be because of Denver.

Nothing echoes out like that debate. It was the moment that allowed Mr. Romney to break through, that allowed dismay with the incumbent to coalesce, that allowed voters to consider the alternative.

. . .

Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn’t do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.

What he couldn’t do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn’t afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.

But that’s what he did.

And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren’t there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn’t have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it’s never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.

. . .

[Mitt] Romney was poised, knowledgable, presidential. It was a mistake to let that come forward!

. . .

The sheer number of people who watched—a historic 70 million—suggests a lot of voters were still making up their minds.

. . .

Maybe what happened isn’t a mystery at all.

That, anyway, is the view expressed this week by a member of the U.S. Senate who served there with Mr Obama and has met with him in the White House. People back home, he said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn’t a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that’s the real Obama.

***

Which gets us to Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics,” published last month. The portrait it contains of Mr. Obama—of a president who is at once over his head, out of his depth and wholly unaware of the fact—hasn’t received the attention it deserves. Throughout the book, which is a journalistic history of the president’s key economic negotiations with Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama is portrayed as having the appearance and presentation of an academic or intellectual while being strangely clueless in his reading of political situations and dynamics. He is bad at negotiating—in fact doesn’t know how. His confidence is consistently greater than his acumen, his arrogance greater than his grasp.

He misread his Republican opponents from day one. If he had been large-spirited and conciliatory he would have effectively undercut them, and kept them from uniting. (If he’d been large-spirited with Mr. Romney, he would have undercut him, too.) Instead he was toughly partisan, he shut them out, and positions hardened. In time Republicans came to think he doesn’t really listen, doesn’t really hear. So did some Democrats. Business leaders and mighty CEOs felt patronized: After inviting them to meet with him, the president read from a teleprompter and included the press. They felt like “window dressing.” One spoke of Obama’s surface polish and essential remoteness. In negotiation he did not cajole, seduce, muscle or win sympathy. He instructed. He claimed deep understanding of his adversaries and their motives but was often incorrect. He told staffers that John Boehner, one of 11 children of a small-town bar owner, was a “country club Republican.” He was often patronizing, which in the old and accomplished is irritating but in the young and inexperienced is infuriating. “Boehner said he hated going down to the White House to listen to what amounted to presidential lectures,” Mr. Woodward writes.

Mr. Obama’s was a White House that had—and showed—no respect for Republicans trying to negotiate with Republicans. Through it all he was confident—”Eric, don’t call my bluff”—because he believed, as did his staff, that his talents would save the day.

They saved nothing. Washington became immobilized.

Mr. Woodward’s portrait of the president is not precisely new—it has been drawn in other ways in other accounts, and has been a staple of D.C. gossip for three years now—but it is vivid and believable. And there’s probably a direct line between that portrait and the Obama seen in the first debate. Maybe that’s what made it so indelible, and such an arc-changer.

People saw for the first time an Obama they may have heard about on radio or in a newspaper but had never seen.

They didn’t see some odd version of the president. They saw the president.

And they didn’t like what they saw, and that would linger.

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204530504578079232194509700.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion (emphasis added)

This is a fine article by Noonan, and it is accurate as far as it goes. However, it does not go far enough.

If more Americans had read Barack Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” before the 2008 elections, they would have realized that he is a racist, a narcissist, and not someone who is truly likable. It is set forth there, in his own words, for all to read.

Read the book if you have any doubts.

I am an Independent; and before the 2008 elections, I considered the idea of voting for Obama and working actively on his campaign. I even had discussions with someone very close to the top about working on Obama’s “housing advisory group,” because of work that I had done in the U.S. Senate.

In the final analysis, I voted for John McCain because of two issues: (1) the economy, and (2) national security matters. And I read Obama’s book twice after the election, to more fully understand what our new president was really like.

The book was a shocker; and my first article that began this blog—which appears above—draws on his own words to describe his core beliefs.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

. . .

Obama and racial hatred

If Mitt Romney wins the election, which is likely, racial prejudice may increase dramatically. Blacks have said they will riot, which would produce a dramatic backlash on the part of whites; and the post-Obama period in racial relations might be grim. After Obama, who has played the “race card” again and again, and fanned racial and class divisions, it may be a very long time before another black is elected president; and many blacks may feel more alienated than ever.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223977/Racial-prejudice-increased-51-cent-Americans-Obama-took-office-finds-AP-poll.html (“Racial prejudice has increased to 51 per cent of Americans since Obama took office finds AP poll”); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-2149 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2282 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2101 and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-1782 and http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-obamas-job-approval-drops-7-points-3-days (“Gallup: Obama’s Job Approval Drops 7 Points in 3 Days”—”On Oct. 26, it dropped . . . to 46 percent who said they approved and 49 percent who said they did not“) and http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-theres-never-been-day-last-four-years-ive-been-proud-be-his-vice-president_660130.html (“Biden: ‘There’s Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I’ve Been Proud To Be His Vice President’“) and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9652764/Mitt-Romney-can-still-win-and-he-deserves-to.html (“This was supposed to be a presidency of great thoughts and ideals. Obama was the big ideas guy: hope, change, the transformation of Washington, and a new post-racial, post-partisan politics. But whenever a moment came to go big, Obama went small”) and http://www.dickmorris.com/prediction-dick-morris-tv-special-election-alert/ (“[P]rediction—a big Romney win!”) and http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/05/Obama-closes-to-half-empty-stadium-in-Ohio (“OBAMA ENDS CAMPAIGN IN HALF-EMPTY ARENA“)

Obama-gone

But see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/6/morning-after-reality-no-easy-answers-to-gridlock/ (“Morning-after reality: No easy answers to gridlock”) and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578103751218075988.html (“Big Bet Six Months Ago Paved Way for President”) and http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-celebrate-obama-victory-with-profane-racist-tweets (“Liberals on Twitter celebrate Obama victory with profane, racist tweets”) and http://www.dickmorris.com/why-i-was-wrong/#more-10133 (Dick Morris: “Why I Was Wrong”) and http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-way-forward/2012/11/08/6592e302-29d8-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html (GOP: “There’s no need for radical change. . . . Romney is a good man who . . . nearly won. He would have made a superb chief executive”)

Like

6 11 2012
smilinjacksez

Early in the book, “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama was careful to point out: “I wouldn’t do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.” Perhaps those words encapsulate his political life, his campaign for the presidency, and how he is governing now and hopes to survive the global economic meltdown, national security challenges and growing constituent anger, while trying to change the essence of America. In the final analysis, will he be viewed by history as a racist or a healer? Time will tell.

The question is ” What do you think “. My answer is : A dead rabbit would make a better president than Obama. Give Obama another 4 years, and I think he will finish destroying the United States economically, which was his original plan to begin with.

Like

9 02 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

When Will Obama Fall?

Obama and rifle

In an article entitled, “With Plea Deal, Jesse Jackson Jr.’s Fall From Grace Seems Complete,” Newsweek‘s John Avlon writes:

Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. agreed Friday to plead guilty to charges of misusing campaign funds, in an apparent bid to an end a federal investigation that threatens to also implicate his wife, former Chicago Alderman Sandi Jackson. Both had resigned their offices in recent months, reportedly as part of the congressman’s negotiations with prosecutors.

. . .

The Jackson dynasty appears to be done.

. . .

[Jackson Jr.] resigned two weeks after Election Day. His wife, a city alderman, resigned her office in January after the Chicago Sun Times raised questions about her use of campaign funds from her husband’s congressional accounts, including a $5,000 monthly consulting salary, credit-card charges and the moving of money between accounts.

This practice is apparently epidemic in the corruption-plagued Land of Lincoln.

. . .

Some swamps take a long time to drain. Stunningly, three current members of the Illinois state legislature were sworn in this year despite facing criminal charges, ranging from bribery to bank fraud.

See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/08/with-plea-deal-jesse-jackson-jr-s-fall-from-grace-seems-complete.html; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2315 (“Will Obama ‘Unravel’ Like Nixon Did?”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/ (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It”)

Barack Obama is an integral part of the same corrupt Chicago culture.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

When will the Obama “swamp” be drained, and how complete will be his fall from grace?

Like

27 05 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Free George Zimmerman, And Shut Down The Racists!

There is little question that Zimmerman is being persecuted by racists—of the same ilk as those who freed O.J. Simpson after this heinous murders of his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman on June 12, 1994 in Los Angeles.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2098 (“Trayvon Martin Protesters Ransack Store”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/barack-obama-is-a-lame-duck-president-who-will-not-be-reelected/#comment-2101 (“OBAMA PLAYS THE RACE CARD”); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)

Racial politics must not be allowed to condemn and imprison Zimmerman!

Like

10 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Racial Profiling Of George Zimmerman

Ann Coulter has written in an excellent article entitled, “Zimmerman Trial Is This Year’s Duke Lacrosse Case”:

This week, instead of attacking a Hispanic senator, Marco Rubio, I will defend a Hispanic citizen, George Zimmerman, on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. (Zimmerman would make a better senator.) It’s becoming painfully obvious why no charges were brought against Zimmerman in this case—until Al Sharpton got involved. All the eyewitness accounts, testimony, ballistics and forensics keep backing up Zimmerman. We should send a big, fat bill for the whole thing to Sharpton, courtesy of MSNBC.

With the prosecution’s witnesses making the defense’s case, the inquisitors’ last stand is to claim that, if the races were reversed, the black guy would have been instantly charged with murder. As explained in The New York Times:

“Had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman under similar circumstances, black leaders say, the case would have barreled down a different path: Mr. Martin would have been quickly arrested by the Sanford Police Department and charged in the killing, without the benefit of the doubt.” (Also, CNN could have dropped the “white” and referred to Zimmerman exclusively as “Hispanic.”)

The people who say this are counting on the rest of us being too polite to mention that it is nearly impossible to imagine such a case in a world where half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks. To reverse the races with the same set of facts, first, we’re going to need a gated, mixed-race community, similar to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, that has recently experienced a rash of robberies by white guys. The only way to do that is to enter “The Twilight Zone.”

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman’s encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that “most” of these were committed by black males. I’m waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.

Just six months before Zimmerman’s encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child. Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house—one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman’s house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor’s house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn’t get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor’s window.

The only reason it’s hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it’s hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society’s reactions, but of the facts.

There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder.

In 2006, the ironically named John White was sound asleep at his nice Long Island home when his teenage son woke him to say there was a mob of white kids shouting epithets in front of the house. The family was in no imminent danger. They could have called 911 and remained safely behind locked doors.

But White grabbed a loaded Beretta and headed out to the end of the driveway to confront the mob. A scuffle ensued and White ended up shooting one of the kids in the face, killing him.

White was charged and convicted only of illegal weapons possession—this was New York, after all—and involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 20 months-to-four years in prison, but after serving five months was pardoned by Gov. David Paterson.

With all due compassion for the kid who was killed, the public was overwhelmingly on the father’s side—a fact still evident in Internet postings about the case. The kids were punks menacing a law-abiding homeowner. Even the prosecutor complained only that Paterson hadn’t called the victim’s family first. The local NAACP had campaigned aggressively on White’s behalf. There were no threats to riot in case of an acquittal.

The centerpiece of White’s self-defense argument was his recollection of his grandfather’s stories about the Ku Klux Klan. George Zimmerman’s memory of young black males committing crimes at Twin Lakes is somewhat more recent.

John White wasn’t jumped, knocked to the ground, repeatedly punched, and his skull knocked against the ground. He wasn’t even touched, though he claimed the white teen was lunging at him. Talk about no reason to “follow,” there was no reason for him to leave the safety of his locked home. White’s son knew the kids by name. They could have waited for the cops.

So, yes, this case probably would be very different if Zimmerman and Martin’s races were reversed. It is only when the victim is black that we must have a show trial, a million-dollar reward paid to the victim’s parents and the threat of riots.

See http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/10/zimmerman-trial-is-this-years-duke-lacrosse-case/ (emphasis added); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-2149 (“OBAMA PLAYS THE RACE CARD”)

Bravo for Ann Coulter! Once again, she has called a spade a spade, and assessed the Zimmerman trial correctly. It is a farce, promulgated by Black racists and their Liberal kin.

Non-Black Americans should feel zero guilt about writing or speaking out forcefully concerning the issues that Ann Coulter has discussed. The threat of riots should not intimidate even one non-Black American.

No other group has rioted—in Watts, or on behalf of Rodney King, or elsewhere in the United States for perceived grievances and injustices—except the Blacks. Enough is enough!

. . .

Also, it must never be forgotten that young Blacks target elderly Blacks, who are defenseless. This is the major tragedy, yet the Black community is not policing its own.

Like

13 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Zimmerman Prosecutors ‘Should Be Disbarred’

This is the verdict of famed attorney and Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz—with whom I do not always agree. His views about the Trayvon Martin case, and the trial of George Zimmerman, are as follows:

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with “prosecutorial misconduct” for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

“That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with . . . to make up a story from whole cloth,” Dershowitz told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion.”

Zimmerman, a 29-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, is charged with gunning down Martin, 17, as the two fought following a confrontation in the gated Sanford, Fla., community where Zimmerman lives—an act the defendant said was in self-defense.

In the prosecution’s final argument on Friday, lawyer John Guy said Zimmerman deliberately followed Martin and “shot him because he wanted to.”

Dershowitz called Guy’s statement “such speculation. How does he get into the mind of Zimmerman? He hasn’t cross-examined him, he hasn’t met him.

“To ask the jury to believe that is to ask the jury to convict based on complete and utter speculation and that’s not the way the law operates.”

A day earlier, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman—whom he labeled a “wannabe cop”—”followed” and “tracked” Martin after profiling him as a criminal.

Dershowitz said not only should Zimmerman have not been charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors should not have pushed to have manslaughter and child abuse added to the list of possible jury verdicts.

“[It's] utterly irresponsible. . . . The idea that the prosecution can try the case on a murder theory and then, at the last minute, substitute manslaughter, even though it seems to be permitted generally under Florida law—it’s a big mistake to allow it in a case like this,” he said.

“And then the very idea of even suggesting child abuse in a case like this is so irresponsible.”

Dershowitz praised the closing argument of defense lawyer Mark O’Mara.

“He did the right thing by being methodical and factual because this is a case where the prosecution’s case is all emotion and the defense case is all factual,” the famed civil-rights lawyer said.

“Emotionally, obviously everybody can identify with a young, unarmed 17-year-old who ends up dead, and emotionally, as President [Barack] Obama said, he’s all of our children.”

Dershowitz—whose clients have included Claus von Bulow, Mike Tyson, Patricia Hearst, and former televangelist Jim Bakker—said the case has “reasonable doubt” written all over it.

“Nobody knows who started the initial physical encounter, who threw the first blow—and if you don’t know that you have to have a reasonable doubt,” he said.

“Nobody knows for sure who screamed, ‘Help me, help me.’ You have to have a reasonable doubt about that. Nobody knows for sure who was on top and who was on bottom, though the overwhelming forensic evidence suggests that Zimmerman was on the bottom having his head banged by a younger, stronger man. You have to have reasonable doubt there.”

See http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dershowitz-zimmerman-trayvon-martin/2013/07/12/id/514847?s=al&promo_code=14295-1; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-2636 (“The Racial Profiling Of George Zimmerman”)

Amen!

Like

14 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: NOT GUILTY!

See also http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/14/sot-zimmerman-trial-verdict.cnn.html

Bravo! Justice has been served!

. . .

Unfortunately, in the next breath, Barack Obama’s disgraced Justice Department has announced that “it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case.”

See http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH_JUSTICE_DEPT_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-14-16-02-34; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/the-united-states-department-of-injustice/ (“The United States Department of Injustice”)

An AP story on the subject adds:

In a statement Sunday, the Justice Department said the criminal section of the civil rights division, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida are continuing to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal probe, in addition to the evidence and testimony from the state trial.

The statement said that, in the government’s words, “experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation.”

See id.

This is totally consistent with how Barack Obama, his administration, and his Democratic Party operate. Despite having said that “[a] jury has spoken,” Obama and his Justice Department—and key party members, such as Harry Reid—are still trying to find a way to destroy George Zimmerman.

See http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/george-zimmerman-verdict-94130.html?hp=t1; see also http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/14/Reid-Zimmerman-not-over (“REID ON ZIMMERMAN: ‘THIS ISN’T OVER WITH'”)

This is unconscionable, and Obama should be impeached—for this, and a long list of other issues!

Like

15 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Dershowitz: ‘Prosecutorial Tyrant’ Violated Zimmerman’s Rights

It has been reported:

Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case—but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias.

. . . Dershowitz said the jury’s finding that Zimmerman was not guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter was “the right verdict.”

He added, “There was reasonable doubt all over the place.”

Immediately after the verdict was announced, however, the NAACP and outspoken activist Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to launch a federal civil-rights probe, charging that the case had been racially tainted.

Dershowitz is calling for a civil-rights probe as well. But he contends the person whose rights were violated was Zimmerman.

“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties—by the prosecutor,” said the criminal-law expert. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”

He added: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.”

Dershowitz said the second-degree murder case should never have gone to trial considering the flimsy evidence against Zimmerman. He also does not believe it was strong enough to be submitted to a jury for deliberation.

“If the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury. . . . She should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.”

Dershowitz singled out special prosecutor Angela Corey for “disciplinary action.”

He criticized the state’s probable-cause affidavit for not including evidence indicating Zimmerman could have been acting in self-defense, including graphic images of blood streaming from his scalp and nose.

“The prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder. . . . She deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.

“That violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team,” he said.

Dershowitz described the prosecution’s attempt late in the case to add a third-degree murder charge by asserting the shooting constituted child abuse “so professionally irresponsible as to warrant sanctions and investigations.”

Dershowitz said various legal and bar association organizations could investigate how the state handled the prosecution. He added it could warrant a federal investigation as well.

“I think people’s rights have been violated, . . . but it was the rights of the defendant and the defense team, by utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and in my view criminal actions by the prosecutor,” he said.

Dershowitz went on to express his opinion that Corey is “basically a prosecutorial tyrant, and well known for that in Florida.”

Dershowitz and Corey have had run-ins before. She contacted Harvard Law School demanding that he be disciplined for voicing his opinion that she had improperly omitted information that could have exonerated Zimmerman.

“Of course, the Harvard Law School laughed at [her complaint],” he said.

. . . Even after the verdict was rendered Saturday, Corey continued to defend her decision to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

“We charge what we believe we can prove,” she told the media. “That’s why we charged second-degree murder. We truly believe that the mindset of George Zimmerman and the words that he used and the reason he was out doing what he was doing fit the bill for second-degree murder.”

Corey said the case “has never been about race,” but also said there was “no doubt” young Trayvon Martin had been “profiled to be a criminal.”

Although Zimmerman was cleared of all charges, Corey told the media: “This case was about boundaries and George Zimmerman exceeded those boundaries.

Dershowitz [said] he expects there will probably be a lawsuit filed against Zimmerman for civil damages. He said civil-damage cases require a lower standard of proof that a wrong has been committed, and Zimmerman would not be able to avoid testifying.

But Dershowitz adds: “I don’t know where you’ll find a lawyer who is prepared to bring it, because it has very little chance of success.”

Asked if he expects Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department to launch a civil-rights investigation targeting Zimmerman, Dershowitz stated: “I don’t think that’s going to happen, and if it happens, I don’t think it would succeed.”

Dershowitz [said] the prosecutor overcharged the case, and never should have sought a second-degree murder conviction.

“The theory was clearly to charge second-degree murder, and hope for a compromise verdict of manslaughter,” he said.

Dershowitz was careful to add that the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin exposes a need to reform Florida laws.

He believes the Stand Your Ground law should be changed because it “elevates macho over the need to preserve life.”

He also stated that racial profiling “has to be addressed.”

“I think these vigilante community groups have to be disarmed,” he said. “I don’t think Zimmerman should have been allowed to have a gun.

“He should have been walking around with a walkie-talkie and calling the police,” he said. “It’s the job of the police to investigate and apprehend suspects based on their professional training.”

But the need for future legal reforms had no bearing on the Zimmerman trial, Dershowitz said, and insisted the case should never have reached a jury.

See http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Zimmerman-Prosecutorial-Misconduct/2013/07/14/id/514957?s=al&promo_code=142AB-1; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-2640 (“Zimmerman Prosecutors ‘Should Be Disbarred’”)

Of course, Dershowitz is correct!

Like

17 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

VIOLENCE

If we want to reduce or eliminate violence, then Hollywood should not make and distribute any violent films and TV shows; such violence should be banned from TV programming; violent video games should be banned; advertisers that support violent media undertakings should see their products boycotted; parents who allow their children to commit violence should be prosecuted; and those who advocate violence should be prosecuted as well.

Like

18 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

TO AVOID LOOKING LIKE A CRIMINAL, DON’T COMMIT A CRIME

This is the title of an article by Ann Coulter, which states:

Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the “not guilty” verdict in George Zimmerman’s murder trial. To avoid what happened to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don’t walk up to a stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash his head against the pavement.

The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending there hasn’t been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie.

Dozens of these hair-on-fire racism stories are retold in my book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.” In the golden age of racial demagoguery, they came at a pace of about one a year. Al Sharpton was usually involved.

A normal person would hear some of the more outlandish allegations and think, “I can’t believe it!” not meaning, “Wow! What a blockbuster story!” but rather, “I would like to hear the facts because I literally don’t believe it.” (That was much of America’s reaction to the media’s claim last year that a neighborhood-watch captain in Florida had hunted down a black teenager and shot him dead just for wearing a hoodie.) Whenever a much-celebrated claim of racism turned out to be false—which was almost always—you’d just stop hearing about it. There would never be a clippable story admitting that the media’s harrumphing had been in error:

Attention, readers! That story we’ve been howling about for several months turned out to be a complete fraud.

A little time would pass, and then we’d get an all-new, excited “America is still racist” media campaign. Journalists are incapable of learning that they should get all the facts before launching moral crusades.

As a result, the official record shows: A few hate crimes and some unverified hate crimes with no clear resolution one way or another. As long as the fraudulent hate crimes didn’t get counted as strikeouts, liberals always looked like Ted Williams.

Since they didn’t keep an accurate batting average, I did it for them in “Mugged.”

The case most like George Zimmerman’s is the Edmund Perry case. In 1985, Perry, a black teenager from Harlem who had just graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, mugged a guy who turned out to be an undercover cop. He got shot and a few hours later was dead.

Instead of waiting for the facts, the media rushed out with a story about Officer Lee Van Houten being a trigger-happy, racist cop. When that turned out to be false, The New York Times looked at its shoes. It was the kind of story the elites wanted to be true. It should be true. We had such high hopes for that one. Damn!

The initial news accounts stressed not only that Perry was a graduate of Exeter on his way to Stanford, but that he was unarmed. (In all white-on-black shootings, the media expect the white to have RoboCop-like superpowers to detect any weapons on the perp as well as his resume.)

A few weeks after the shooting, The New York Times called Perry “a prized symbol of hope.” In a telling bit of obtuseness, The Times said that “all New Yorkers have extraordinary reasons to wish for the innocence of the young man who was killed.” I doubt very much that the cop being accused of being a murderous racist hoped for that.

An article in The Village Voice explained: “[L]ike so many other victims in this city,” Perry was “just too black for his own good.”

Luckily for the policeman, Perry had mugged him in a well-lit hospital parking lot. Twenty-three witnesses backed the officer’s story in testimony to the grand jury. (Unlike Zimmerman, Van Houten’s case was at least presented to a grand jury.)

As I wrote in “Mugged”: “God help Officer Van Houten if he had been mugged someplace other than a hospital parking lot with plenty of witnesses.” Such as, for example, a dark pathway in The Retreat at Twin Lakes. There weren’t 23 witnesses backing Zimmerman’s story, only about a half-dozen. But, as with Van Houten, the evidence overwhelmingly corroborated Zimmerman’s story.

In Van Houten’s case, even after it was blindingly clear that Perry had mugged him, the truth was only revealed amid great sorrow. When the facts were unknown, the cop was a racist. When it turned out Perry had mugged the cop, it was no one’s fault, but a problem of “violence,” “confusion” and “two worlds” colliding.

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.

As with Zimmerman’s case this week, some journalists pretended to have missed the court proceedings that supported the self-defense story. Even after the grand jury’s refusal to indict Van Houten, Dorothy J. Gaiter of the Miami Herald wrote about Perry in an article titled “To Be Black and Male Is Dangerous in U.S.” She asked: “How do you teach a boy to be a man in a society where others may view him as a threat just because he is black?”

Van Houten said he was jumped, knocked to the ground, punched and kicked by Edmund Perry. Grand jury witnesses backed his story. Isn’t it possible that Van Houten saw Perry as a threat for reasons other than “just because he is black”?

(And please stop talking about Martin’s “hoodie”! Zimmerman wasn’t worried about the hoodie; he was worried about being beaten to death.)

Instead of turning every story about a black person killed by a white person into an occasion to announce, “The simple fact is, America is a racist society,” liberals might, one time, ask the question: Why do you suppose there would be a generalized fear of young black males? What might that be based on?

Throw us a bone. It’s because a disproportionate number of criminals are young black males. It just happens that when Lee Van Houten and George Zimmerman were mugged by two of them, they survived the encounter.

See http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/17/to-avoid-looking-like-a-criminal-dont-commit-a-crime/

. . .

Elderly Blacks and White women are particularly vulnerable. A friend of mine’s wife in Los Angeles was volunteering at a Junior League thrift shop near USC, and had returned to her car when a Black man jumped into her front passenger seat, threatened her, and told her to drive.

Fortunately, she had taken a Mace course, and had a canister attached to her car key; and she had the presence of mind to spray him in the face and jump out of the car and run back to the shop.

Her car was found about a week later . . . torched.

Another lovely Hispanic woman worked for a Hollywood criminal defense lawyer who put his non-paying clients to work. She “crossed” one of them, and he torched her car as well.

. . .

Some American Blacks are very angry and want to pick a fight. However, they need to remember that they truly constitute a minority group—about 12.4 percent of the American people, to be exact. Lots of Hispanics have no use for them; and the same is true of Asians and other groups.

If these groups and “Whites” ganged up against the Blacks, and said “enough is enough,” it could get very dicey and nasty for Black thugs and their wannabes. The retribution against them might be swift, overwhelming and tragic. Any guilt on the part of non-Black Americans for slavery, which ended 150 years ago, is long gone . . . if it ever existed.

Wonderful American Blacks need to stand up and speak out, and tell it like it is. Violence within their community hurts them most.

Like

20 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Bash Mobs Sweep Through Southern California

The Los Angeles Times has reported:

Organized “bash mob” crime rampages of roving groups attacking innocent people and businesses have been striking cities around the United States. Law enforcement agencies in Southern California have reported few similar problems—until now.

In the last several days, there have been several reports of such group crime waves in South L.A., Hollywood, San Bernardino and Victorville. Long Beach police are bracing for another one Friday.

These so-called bash mobs of “flash mob” crime waves are organized through social media and have been a problem in Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington. In April, 28 Chicago youths were arrested on suspicion of attacking pedestrians along the city’s famed Magnificent Mile. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation in May enacting stiffer penalties for people who text or use social media to organize mob attacks.

Long Beach police warned in a statement that participants could face severe penalties.

“The mere participation in such an event can result in felony charges including conspiracy, and are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison,” according to the statement.

Police said they feared bash mob organizers planned to hit Long Beach at 2 p.m.

Long Beach experienced such a gathering July 9, when more than 100 people descended on stretches of downtown in an organized, sudden crime rampage.

On Monday, a group of unruly young people broke off from hundreds gathered for a Trayvon Martin prayer vigil and rushed into a Wal-Mart on Crenshaw Boulevard, where they tossed merchandise and tried to break into a jewelry display case.

In Hollywood on Tuesday night, a flash mob of thieves rushed down Hollywood Boulevard, stealing phones, knocking over tourists and vandalizing shops, according to police, who said it may have been related to the George Zimmerman verdict. Twelve people—11 juveniles and one 18-year-old—were arrested on suspicion of robbery.

On Wednesday night in Victorville, authorities arrested 17 people after a group allegedly tried to force its way into the Mall of Victor Valley.

See http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bash-mobs-southern-california-20130719,0,1569435.story

This is what Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and other Black racists have wrought!

These Black protestors and their Liberal kin are the worst kind of racists. If they unleash violence, they must be dealt with harshly, with no mercy shown.

If the verdict had gone against George Zimmerman, Whites would not have rioted, period.

. . .

Of course Barack Obama is a racist. If you have any doubts whatsoever, read his book “Dreams from My Father,” written in his own words.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Wake up America!

Like

21 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Antonio Santiago West Is Remembered

You won’t recognize me. My name was Antonio West and I was the 13-month old child who was shot at point blank range by two black teens who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy’s peers from Brunswick GA determined the black-teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty . . . too bad I was given a death sentence for being innocent and defenseless.

My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. Nor did President Obama take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation’s history, but the media doesn’t care to cover the story of my tragic demise, President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me—so he doesn’t care and the media doesn’t care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

There is not a white equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me. There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller—I no longer have my life.

So while the blacks and liberals [are] seeking justice for Treyvon, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like they did for Treyvon.

See http://ca.news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-parents-lead-protests-over-zimmerman-verdict-110620423.html; see also http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/antonio-santiago-west-dead-georgia-baby-killed_n_2931273.html

Like

25 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

RACE RELATIONS HAVE PLUMMETED SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE

It has been reported:

Public attitudes about race relations have plummeted since the historic election of President Barack Obama, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Only 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks have a favorable opinion of race relations in the country, according to the poll, which has tracked race relations since 1994 and was conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies.

That’s a sharp drop from the beginning of Obama’s first term, when 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of American race relations.

Negative views on race relations have also increased substantially. According to the poll [pdf], 45 percent of whites and 58 percent African-Americans now believe race relations are very or fairly bad, compared with 2009, when only 20 percent of whites and 30 percent of blacks held an unfavorable view.

Although the NBC/WSJ survey addressed the politically fueled Trayvon Martin controversy only obliquely (asking how the acquittal of George Zimmerman in Martin’s shooting death had affected respondents’ views of the legal system), the survey’s historical time frame—which shows the steepest declines in positives and increases in negatives coming in the last two years—suggests the firestorm over the Martin case played a role in diminishing the high solidarity between whites and blacks that was exemplified by Obama’s election.

By November 2011, three years after Obama’s election, only 22 percent of whites and 41 percent of African-Americans believed that race relations were fairly bad or very bad. Positive views have fallen correspondingly since November 2011, when 75 percent of whites and 57 percent of blacks said race relations were either good or very good.

Obama garnered intense criticism in March 2012 for weighing in on the shooting death of Martin, announcing, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Obama went a step further in July 2013, after the acquittal of neighborhood watchman Zimmerman in Martin’s death, declaring, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

As The Daily Caller reported, the Obama administration’s Justice Department sent a unit with a history of anti-white racial advocacy to Sanford, Florida to help facilitate protests in the area calling for Zimmerman’s prosecution in 2012, including a major rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton.

The bitter 2012 election, which saw Obama running on a stagnating economy and his supporters mounting intense attacks on challenger Mitt Romney, may also have contributed to the souring of race relations. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which steadfastly supports the Obama administration, distributed pro-Obama election flyers in 2012 with lynching and Ku Klux Klan imagery.

Although these efforts may have helped boost African-American turnout to record levels and deliver the key states of Florida and Ohio to Obama, they do not appear to have done much for black Americans. The black unemployment rate in the United States is currently 13.7 percent, more than six points higher than the national unemployment rate, which stands at 7.6 percent.

Overall, the public’s view of race-relations has fallen back to levels reported in 1994 and 2007.

The increased division is a long way from the hope for improved race relations that fueled and accompanied Obama’s 2008 victory.

“It’s all about the coalition of the willing,” Michael Stewart, a progressive activist, told The Chicago Tribune in November 2009. “I’ve come to appreciate people as individuals, not by their race [and] there’s more a focus on what we have in common than what divides us.”

See http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/race-relations-have-plummeted-since-obama-took-office-according-to-poll/ (emphasis added)

Like

28 07 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

4 Out Of 5 in USA Face Near-Poverty, No Work . . .

The AP has reported:

Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor and loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration’s emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to “rebuild ladders of opportunity” and reverse income inequality.

Hardship is particularly on the rise among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families’ economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy “poor.”

“I think it’s going to get worse,” said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend, but it doesn’t generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.

“If you do try to go apply for a job, they’re not hiring people, and they’re not paying that much to even go to work,” she said. Children, she said, have “nothing better to do than to get on drugs.”

While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in government data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.

The gauge defines “economic insecurity” as experiencing unemployment at some point in their working lives, or a year or more of reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.

“It’s time that America comes to understand that many of the nation’s biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty.

He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama’s election, while struggling whites do not.

“There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front,” Wilson said.

___

Sometimes termed “the invisible poor” by demographers, lower-income whites are generally dispersed in suburbs as well as small rural towns, where more than 60 percent of the poor are white. Concentrated in Appalachia in the East, they are also numerous in the industrial Midwest and spread across America’s heartland, from Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma up through the Great Plains.

More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation’s destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.

Still, while census figures provide an official measure of poverty, they’re only a temporary snapshot. The numbers don’t capture the makeup of those who cycle in and out of poverty at different points in their lives. They may be suburbanites, for example, or the working poor or the laid off.

In 2011 that snapshot showed 12.6 percent of adults in their prime working-age years of 25-60 lived in poverty. But measured in terms of a person’s lifetime risk, a much higher number—4 in 10 adults—falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.

The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.

By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.

By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.

“Poverty is no longer an issue of ‘them’, it’s an issue of ‘us’,” says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who calculated the numbers. “Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need.”

Rank’s analysis is supplemented with figures provided by Tom Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University; John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University; the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute; the Census Bureau; and the Population Reference Bureau.

Among the findings:

—For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households who were living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.

—The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods—those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more—has increased to 1 in 10, putting them at higher risk of teen pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, up from 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the U.S. has been declining.

The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped sharply, from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children ticked higher, from 38 to 39 percent.

___

Going back to the 1980s, never have whites been so pessimistic about their futures, according to the General Social Survey, which is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.

The divide is especially evident among those whites who self-identify as working class: 49 percent say they think their children will do better than them, compared with 67 percent of non-whites who consider themselves working class.

In November, Obama won the votes of just 36 percent of those noncollege whites, the worst performance of any Democratic nominee among that group since 1984.

Some Democratic analysts have urged renewed efforts to bring working-class whites into the political fold, calling them a potential “decisive swing voter group” if minority and youth turnout level off in future elections.

“They don’t trust big government, but it doesn’t mean they want no government,” says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. “They feel that politicians are giving attention to other people and not them.”

See http://bigstory.ap.org/article/exclusive-4-5-us-face-near-poverty-no-work-0

Hold on tight. It will get far worse between now and the end of this decade!

. . .

But nothing interrupts the Obamas’ lavish vacations!

See, e.g., http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-vineyard-vacation-at-7.6m-private-resort-over-75-rooms-booked-for-staff/article/2533598 (“Obama Vineyard vacation at $7.6m private resort, over 75 rooms booked for staff”) and http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/07/29/wh-tours-parade-special-visitors-continues/ (“Still No [White House] Tours, but Parade of Special Visitors Continues”)

Like

7 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Black Racism

The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family. Right now, about 73 percent of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty. And the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys growing up resentful and unsupervised.

These are the words of Bill O’Reilly, which are echoed by Ann Coulter.

See http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/07/bill-oreilly-is-smarter-than-lawrence-odonnell/; see also http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/14/racism-card-looking-a-little-dog-eared/ (“Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, which they do by telling tall tales about racist Republicans”)

Instead of helping, Barack Obama has been fanning racial hatreds. This is totally consistent with how he grew up—angry and resentful—and with his racist views that are written in his own words in “Dreams from My Father,” which are discussed in the article and other comments above.

. . .

Tolerance of blacks, and efforts to bridge the racial divide that exists between blacks and whites, is being reversed. Blacks are angry, and whites are responding in kind. This is apt to get far worse, before it gets better. Also, other racial groups (e.g., Hispanics, Asians) will be responding in the same way to blacks, in all likelihood.

Indeed, as I have written above:

The real tragedy would occur if White and Hispanic America—and other ethnic and racial groups in the United States, such as Asians—were to turn against Black America in retribution, saying: “Enough is enough.” There are many minorities, not just the one that makes the most noise. Also, no one should ever underestimate the fact that violence begets more violence, which can spin out of control.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/#comment-2149

Like

15 08 2013
DB1954x

Early in the book, [“Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama] is careful to point out: “I wouldn’t do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.” Perhaps those words encapsulate his political life, his campaign for the presidency, and how he is governing and hopes to survive the global economic meltdown, national security challenges and growing constituent anger, while trying to change the essence of America.

In the final analysis, will he be viewed [by history as a racist or a healer? Time will tell.]

What’s been ignored here is that there is very good reason to believe that Barack Obama’s biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, not Barack H. Obama, Sr. In fact, in my view, the evidence is compelling and overwhelming, but even if Davis wasn’t Obama’s real father, he was, by Obama’s admission, his first, and most important “mentor.” This period was between 1971 when Obama was ten and 1981, when Obama was eighteen, in other words, throughout his entire adolescence, Obama was, by his own account, under the direct influence of Frank Marshall Davis, who was not only a self-confessed “communist” but anti-Caucasian racist. It was in 1971, that Ann Dunham returned from Indonesia, and dumped Barry on her parents to raise, with the suggestion that they “take him to Frank.” In this connection, how many black men named “Frank,” who also happened to be a friend of Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, do you suppose lived in Honolulu Hawaii in 1971? In Dreams From My Father (1995), Obama even makes reference to “Frank” and his disdain, if not hatred, for whites and life on the mainland U.S., where Davis imagined that the government of the United States was essentially no different from the Ku Klux Klan, and that all whites were devils, beyond and even unworthy of redemption no matter how racially tolerant. THAT is the picture Barack Obama painted of Davis’ views of America, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that he didn’t pass those ideas and attitudes onto Barack Obama. As for Obama it could very well be that Obama himself never knew that Davis was his real father, at least at the time he made his “pilgrimage” to his father’s grave in Kenya. In any case, it seems very odd to me that in 1995, as part of his plan to run for Mayor of Chicago, Barack Obama mentioned “Frank” in his autobiography. This fact tells me that whoever actually wrote or helped Obama write Dreams From My Father, “dropped the cufflink” that is probably the key to understanding the mystery man, Barack Obama. If Obama couldn’t remember Frank’s last name, why would he describe him as his first “mentor”? Obama says that at age 18, “Frank” gave him his last piece of advice, i.e., to the effect that he should never trust whites, before Barry left for California and Occidental College. What reason did the writer have to forget Frank’s last name, since Obama was 18 years of age? Obama would have us believe that he forgot Frank’s name? Frankly, that strains credulity. The only reason would be that Obama, or his ghost writer did not want to reveal the identify of “Frank,” or the fact, that “Frank” was something much more than Obama’s first significant mentor.

Like

15 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments. They are very interesting.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis#Legacy_and_impact

Like

15 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Is A Total Idiot, And Sinister

He has already lost Iraq; he is losing Afghanistan and Pakistan; much of the rest of the Middle East is in turmoil; and now he is on the verge of turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.

See http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/15/20033815-obama-condemns-egypt-over-violence-cancels-joint-military-exercise?lite (“Obama condemns Egypt over violence, cancels joint military exercise”)

He was raised in a Muslim country, Indonesia; and it is not surprising at all that he is doing this.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (see also the comments beneath the article)

To make matters even worse, Obama’s policies are turning Egypt against the United States. Famed reporter Bill Gertz has written:

The Obama administration support for Muslim Brotherhood Islamists in Egypt is driving the powerful military there against the United States and toward Moscow, according to U.S. officials and reports from the region.

The pro-Muslim Brotherhood stance is undermining decades of U.S. policy toward the Middle East state and prompting concerns that the United States is about to “lose” Egypt as a strategic partner, said officials familiar with intelligence reports.

Disclosure of the concern over the administration’s policy failure in Egypt comes as a security crackdown on pro-Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Cairo resulted in scores killed.

“The Obama administration’s blatant Islamist support is risking the decades-long security arrangement with Egypt,” one U.S. official told the Washington Free Beacon.

“The Egyptians are so upset they might very well give up our support,” the official added, noting the military regime is currently leaning toward seeking backing from Russia, and possibly China in the future.

The United States has provided Egypt with more than $49 billion in both military and economic assistance since 1979. Cairo was viewed as a key strategic partner in the region.

However, the 2011 ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a long-time U.S. ally, as part of the pro-democracy Arab Spring movement began a shift in U.S. policy. At that time, the Obama administration began covertly backing the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-democratic Islamist group.

The policy shift was a marked change from past policy. During the 1970s, the United States successfully diverted Egypt’s alignment with Soviet Union under Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser by developing close ties to Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sadat, and later Mubarak.

“The administration, through a combination of ignorance, incompetence and support for the Islamists is reversing the strategy gains we made in Egypt,” the official said.

. . .

U.S. officials said there are signs Egypt’s military is taking steps to expand control over the political system.

Current Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is being touted by government controlled news media as a patriotic, Nasser-like figure who should run for president.

According to the officials, since the June 30 military takeover, pro-military groups and backers of the new regime are promoting anti-American policies in news outlets.

The campaign, which appears to have high-level Egyptian military support, also calls for shifting Egypt’s alliance from the United States to Russia.

Numerous photos promoting the theme have appeared at rallies and on social media in the past month and half.

The campaign also has included an effort to expel U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson, who the pro-militarists say was a backer of the Muslim Brotherhood.

A military source was quoted in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm al-Sabi as saying Patterson was responsible for the killing of Muslim Brotherhood protesters at Rab’a al Adawiya following a reported meeting between her and senior Muslim Brotherhood officials. The reported plot was discussed at a hotel that called for a plan to foment violence that would justify military intervention and sanctions against Egypt.

On Twitter, a pro-military politician, Mustafa Bakri, criticized President Barack Obama for delaying the sale of four F-16 jets to Egypt and called the president “an ally” of the Brotherhood.

In tandem with the anti-U.S. campaign, pro-military news outlets have been promoting a shift in policy toward Russia. The Al Watan newspaper on July 29 quoted several Egyptian foreign affairs experts as urging the government to replace the United States with Russia as a key ally, based on the failure of the U.S. government to support the military takeover.

A pro-military online forum called the “Arabic Military” on July 29 quoted “diplomatic sources” as saying Putin would soon visit Egypt in the aftermath of calls for a reevaluation of U.S.-Egypt ties.

Russia is known to be seeking a foothold in the Middle East following the turmoil in Syria that prompted a Russian pullout [] from the port of Tartus.

Russia also is setting up a new naval headquarters in the Mediterranean.

Other pro-military Facebook pages have criticized Obama and praised Putin. One site called “Egypt will Not Fall” praised Putin as “great Caesar and leader” who is offering to sell Egypt 55 MiG fighter jets to replace the U.S. F-16s.

See http://freebeacon.com/obama-policies-turning-egypt-against-u-s/; see also http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/19/senator-obama-administration-secretly-suspended-military-aid-to-egypt.html (“Obama Administration Secretly Suspended Military Aid to Egypt”)

. . .

In an article entitled, “Can Obama write his own laws?,” the Washington Post‘s Charles Krauthammer has written:

As a reaction to the crack epidemic of the 1980s, many federal drug laws carry strict mandatory sentences. This has stirred unease in Congress and sparked a bipartisan effort to revise and relax some of the more draconian laws.

Traditionally—meaning before Barack Obama—that’s how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement ratified by Congress and signed by the president.

That was then. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence—for example, the amount of dope involved.

In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. “If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases” did that, said former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, “they could be charged with a felony.”

But such niceties must not stand in the way of an administration’s agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses—a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation.

Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs—under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off.

Which came just a month after the administration’s equally lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare: the employer mandate.

Which followed hundreds of Obama­care waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to selected businesses, unions and other well-lobbied, very special interests.

Nor is this kind of rule-by-decree restricted to health care. In 2012, the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier. Obama himself had repeatedly said that the Constitution forbade him from enacting it without Congress. But with the fast approach of an election that could hinge on the Hispanic vote, Obama did exactly that. Unilaterally.

The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act. Or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health care premiums for $175,000-a-year members of Congress. Or even whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients—an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996.

The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush’s so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reasons of mere policy—the reason for every Obama violation listed above.

Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law?

The problem is not just uncertain enforcement but the undermining of the very creation of new law. What’s the point of the whole legislative process—of crafting various provisions through give-and-take negotiation—if you cannot rely on the fixity of the final product, on the assurance that the provisions bargained for by both sides will be carried out?

Consider immigration reform, now in gestation. The essence of any deal would be legalization in return for strict border enforcement. If some such legislative compromise is struck, what confidence can anyone have in it—if the president can unilaterally alter whatever (enforcement) provisions he never liked in the first place?

Yet this president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: I am going to do X—and I’m not going to wait for Congress.

That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first.

At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-can-obama-write-his-own-laws/2013/08/15/81920842-05df-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

. . .

Ann Coulter has added:

I didn’t care for the “Arab Spring,” but the “Arab Summer” is a blockbuster!

Liberals’ rosy predictions for Egypt’s Islamic revolution didn’t turn out as planned. Who could have guessed that howling mobs in Tahrir Square in 2011 would fail to produce a peaceful democracy?

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel’s right to exist. So naturally, Obama told him he had to go.

Let’s review what liberals said at the time about that glorious people’s revolution—only from The New York Times:

– “(Egyptian) Officials blamed the Muslim Brotherhood (for the protests). . . . Even if the Brotherhood had a role—the group denies it; the truth seems more complex—it is easy to understand why Egyptians are fed up.” (Editorial: “Mr. Mubarak Is Put on Notice,” Jan. 26, 2011)

– “The mistake, which still emanates from think tanks stocked with neoconservatives, is assuming that democracy can come at the end of sword. . . . Now that some of the dominoes appear to be falling, this has more to do with Facebook and the frustrations of young, educated adults who can’t earn enough money to marry than it does with tanks rolling into Baghdad, or naive neocons guiding the State Department.” (Timothy Egan, “Bonfire of American Vanities,” Feb. 3, 2011)

– “It’s time to be clear: Mubarak’s time is up.” (Roger Cohen, “Hosni Mubarak Agonistes,” Feb. 4, 2011)

– “What is unfolding in Arab streets is not an assertion of religious reaction but a yearning for democracy with all its burdens and rewards.” (Ray Takeyh, “What Democracy Could Bring,” Feb. 4, 2011)

Oops! Within less than a year, we found out that the truth wasn’t “complex”: The Muslim Brotherhood was behind the revolution. They rigged an election and were planning to implement Sharia law—until the Egyptian military stepped in on behalf of the people this year and removed the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi as president.

In Arab countries, at least, it seems that democracy can come only “at the end of a sword.”

Also in 2011, Obama ordered air strikes in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi—at the precise moment Gadhafi was no longer a threat to anyone. After Bush invaded Iraq, Gadhafi promptly gave up his nuclear program and invited U.N. weapons inspectors in to prove it. Apparently, he wasn’t interested in becoming the next Saddam Hussein.

Obama’s bombing of Gadhafi was also enthusiastically supported at the Times. Gadhafi, you see, had killed hundreds of his own people. Meanwhile, President Bashar Hafez al-Assad of Syria can preside over the slaughter of more than 100,000 of his people since that time without a cross word from the left.

Libyan people proceeded to stalk and kill Gadhafi in the desert (video on YouTube). A year later, the happy people of Libya murdered our ambassador and three other Embassy staff. But as Hillary said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

After all their carping about the Iraq War, you’d think liberals would have waited a few years before getting sentimental about democracy in Egypt and Libya. At least democracy is working in Iraq, despite Obama’s attempt to wreck it by withdrawing all U.S. troops. (We still have troops in Germany—but not in Bush’s Iraq.) Still, our ambassador wasn’t assassinated in Baghdad.

Speaking of which, what is the geopolitical strategy behind Obama’s sending more troops to Afghanistan? The 9/11 attack was not committed by Afghanistan. That country has no history of exporting terrorism. Afghans have traditionally been the invaded, not the invaders. They’re too busy herding goats.

The 9/11 attack was planned by foreigners who had decamped to Afghanistan. Although the Taliban was eager for al-Qaida’s help in fighting the Northern Alliance, it had no interest in attacking America. Mullah Omar dissented from Osama bin Laden on that brilliant idea.

It was one thing to go in and wipe out the Taliban after 9/11 in retaliation for their allowing bin Laden to set up shop there, but what was the point after that? Three months into President Bush’s war in Afghanistan, we had accomplished all we were ever going to accomplish in that godforsaken area of the world.

To quote one of liberals’ favorite arguments against the Iraq War: What does victory in Afghanistan look like?

The one place Obama should have intervened was Iran. The moderate, pro-Western, educated Iranian people were being shot in the street in 2010 for protesting an election stolen by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a messianic lunatic in a Members Only jacket. There was a clear alternative in that case that didn’t involve the Muslim Brotherhood, to wit: the actual winner of the election.

But Obama turned his back on the Iranians. Democrats are so opposed to promoting the United States’ interests around the globe, it doesn’t occur to them that, sometimes, our national interests might coincide with the interests of other people.

Liberals made fun of Sarah Palin for not being able to define “the Bush doctrine.” Can Obama tell us what “the Obama doctrine” is? Leap in only to make the rest of the world a more dangerous place? At least Egyptians are safe now, thanks to their military and no thanks to Obama.

See http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/21/arab-spring-worst-soap-ever/ (emphasis added)

. . .

Charles Krauthammer has added:

Egypt today is a zero-sum game. We’d have preferred there be a democratic alternative. Unfortunately, there is none. The choice is binary: the country will be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood or by the military.

Perhaps it didn’t have to be this way. Perhaps the military should have waited three years for the intensely unpopular Mohamed Morsi to be voted out of office. But Gen.Abdel Fatah al-Sissi seems to have calculated that he didn’t have three years, that by then there would be no elections—as in Gaza, where the Palestinian wing of the Brotherhood, Hamas, elected in 2006, established a one-man-one-vote-one-time dictatorship.

What’s the United States to do? Any response demands two considerations: (a) moral, i.e., which outcome offers the better future for Egypt, and (b) strategic, i.e., which outcome offers the better future for U.S. interests and those of the free world.

As for Egypt’s future, the Brotherhood offered nothing but incompetent, intolerant, increasingly dictatorial rule. In one year, Morsi managed to squander 85 years of Brotherhood prestige garnered in opposition—a place from which one can promise the moon—by persecuting journalists and activists, granting himself the unchallenged power to rule by decree, enshrining a sectarian Islamist constitution and systematically trying to seize the instruments of state power. As if that wasn’t enough, after its overthrow the Brotherhood showed itself to be the party that, when angry, burns churches.

The military, brutal and bloody, is not a very appealing alternative. But it does matter what the Egyptian people think. The anti-Morsi demonstrations were the largest in recorded Egyptian history. Revolted by Morsi’s betrayal of a revolution intended as a new opening for individual dignity and democracy, the protesters explicitly demanded Morsi’s overthrow. And the vast majority seem to welcome the military repression aimed at abolishing the Islamist threat. It’s their only hope, however problematic, for an eventual democratic transition.

And which alternative better helps secure U.S. strategic interests? The list of those interests is long: (1) a secure Suez Canal, (2) friendly relations with the United States, (3) continued alliance with the pro-American Gulf Arabs and Jordanians, (4) retention of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, (5) cooperation with the U.S. on terrorism, which in part involves (6) isolating Brotherhood-run Gaza.

Every one of which is jeopardized by Brotherhood rule.

What, then, should be our policy? The administration is right to deplore excessive violence and urge reconciliation. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing this is possible in any near future. Sissi crossed his Rubicon with the coup. It will either succeed or not. To advocate a middle way is to invite endless civil strife.

The best outcome would be a victorious military magnanimously offering, at some later date, to reintegrate the more moderate elements of what’s left of the Brotherhood.

But for now, we should not be cutting off aid, civilian or military, as many in Congress are demanding. It will have no effect, buy no influence and win no friends on either side of the Egyptian divide. We should instead be urging the quick establishment of a new cabinet of technocrats, rapidly increasing its authority as the soldiers gradually return to their barracks.

Generals are very bad at governance. Give the reins to people who actually know something. And charge them with reviving the economy and preparing the foundations for a democratic transition—most importantly, drafting a secular constitution that protects the rights of women and minorities.

The final step on that long democratic path should be elections. First municipal, then provincial, then national. As was shown in the post-World War II democratizations, the later the better.

After all, we’ve been here. Through a half-century of cold war, we repeatedly faced precisely the same dilemma: choosing the lesser evil between totalitarian (in that case, communist) and authoritarian (usually military) rule.

We generally supported the various militaries in suppressing the communists. That was routinely pilloried as a hypocritical and immoral betrayal of our alleged allegiance to liberty. But in the end, it proved the prudent, if troubled, path to liberty.

The authoritarian regimes we supported—in South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Chile, Brazil, even Spain and Portugal (ruled by fascists until the mid-1970s!)—in time yielded democratic outcomes. Gen. Augusto Pinochet, after 16 years of iron rule, yielded to U.S. pressure and allowed a free election—which he lost, ushering in Chile’s current era of democratic flourishing. How many times have communists or Islamists allowed that to happen?

Regarding Egypt, rather than emoting, we should be thinking: what’s best for Egypt, for us and for the possibility of some eventual democratic future.

Under the Brotherhood, such a possibility is zero. Under the generals, slim.

Slim trumps zero.

. . .

Before the Obama presidency ends, he will have single-handedly destroyed America as we have known it, economically, racially and in terms of our national security and foreign policy. He makes Richard Nixon seem like an American patriot by comparison; and I never voted for Nixon either! However, there is a consensus today that Nixon was a foreign policy expert, unlike Obama who knows little or nothing about foreign policy.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/is-obama-the-new-nixon/ (see also the comments beneath the article)

Like

31 08 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Truth About Martin Luther King, Jr. Emerges . . . Finally

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Driven by FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover’s mistaken conviction that [Martin Luther King, Jr.] was a dangerous Communist, federal agents bugged his hotel rooms. What they found, and tried to use against him in a poisonous blackmail campaign, was not evidence of Communism but of serial adultery.

Leading one of the most astonishing double lives in history, King was not just the Bible-thumping champion of the rights of man, but also an inveterate womaniser who cheated on his wife throughout their marriage.

King’s secret sex life became such a talking point at the White House that recently released interviews with Jackie Kennedy revealed even she knew about it.

Jackie confided how her brother-in-law Bobby Kennedy had told her the FBI had recorded King trying to arrange a sex party on the night before the March on Washington in August 1963.

‘I can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible,’ sniffed the former First Lady. Bobby had told her that King ‘was calling up all these girls and arranging for a party of men and women, I mean, sort of an orgy’.

That King was a sex addict—though probably no worse than Mrs Kennedy’s husband, JFK—has long been a source of embarrassment. . . .

Though it is beyond question that King was charismatic, tireless and courageous, it is also indisputably true that this brilliant man had a seamier side, as one of Dr King’s closest associates confirmed.

Civil rights campaigner the Rev Ralph Abernathy was the man who cradled King the day he was killed by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968.

But in 1989, Abernathy—who succeeded King as the movement’s leader—incurred the eternal wrath of his allies and accusations of a Judas-like betrayal after he confirmed that long-standing rumours about his old friend’s rampant sexual appetites were true.

In his autobiography, Abernathy said King—whose 1953 marriage to Coretta Scott produced four children—had a ‘weakness for women’.

King, a pastor from the age of 25, ‘understood and believed in the Biblical prohibition against sex outside marriage,’ said his friend. ‘It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation.’

And that was putting it mildly. Abernathy related an extraordinary story that indicated King spent the last night of his life enjoying the attentions of not one but two lovers, followed by an encounter with a third woman whom he knocked sprawling across his motel room bed.

The fateful evening had started with King delivering his historic I’ve Been To The Mountaintop speech at the Masonic Temple in Memphis, in which he appeared to foresee his own death.

Afterwards, Abernathy, King and a civil rights movement comrade, the Rev Bernard Lee, went to the home of one of King’s female friends for a late-night dinner.

Abernathy said he and Lee took a post-prandial nap in the sitting room. He awoke at 1am to see King emerging with the woman from her bedroom.

They then returned to their lodgings at a local motel, where a black female politician was waiting to see him. She got her wish and Abernathy left the couple to go to get some sleep in the room he shared with King.

At around 7am or 8am, King burst into their bedroom, looking alarmed, said Abernathy. King needed his friend’s help to calm down a third woman who was, he said, ‘mad at me. She came in this morning and found my bed empty’.

. . .

The drama didn’t end there. When the third woman turned up in the room, her argument with King became so intense that he ‘lost his temper and knocked her across the bed’.

. . .

Abernathy was not the only one to level such accusations.

Though the subject never makes it into the admiring discussions of King on U.S. breakfast TV, CNN or the pages of the New York Times, the preacher’s serial sexual adultery has been covered in a string of acclaimed biographies.

According to Pulitzer prize-winning biographer David Garrow, it was an open secret among civil rights [] activists who even warned King to rein in his ‘compulsive sexual athleticism’.

But he was unrepentant, bluntly telling a friend: ‘I’m away from home 25 to 27 days a month. F*****g’s a form of anxiety reduction.’

Though he didn’t name names, Garrow said three particular women became more than one-nights stands.

King grew very close to one of them—believed to be a female colleague from Atlanta. At one point, he saw her almost every day, though—Garrow added—‘it did not eliminate the incidental couplings that were a commonplace of King’s travels’.

It was clearly not just the civil rights leader doing the chasing. A King aide recalled watching woman after woman making passes at King at a suburban New York fund-raising party.

‘I could not believe what I was seeing in white Westchester women,’ he said. ‘They would walk up to him and would sort of lick their lips and hint, and [hand him] notes . . .  After I saw that thing that evening, I didn’t blame him.’

Evidently, King could afford to be choosy in his adultery. According to an old family friend: ‘The girls he “dated” were just like models . . .  tall . . . all usually were very fair, never dark.’ King, he added, was ‘really a Casanova’, but one who had a ‘quiet dignity’ and was respectful towards his many conquests.

It was an extraordinary secret existence for a man who used the message of the Gospels in all his speeches and who would tell interviewers that ‘sex is basically sacred . . . and must never be abused’.

But as even his closest friends attested, King was a male chauvinist who insisted his wife—a devoted civil rights activist—stay at home and bring up the children while he travelled America with his firebrand preaching.

He once told Coretta he was too busy to discuss which school they should choose for their daughter. On the few days he did spend at home, King was continually on the phone.

It didn’t help that when he was out on the road with his fellow preachers in the early civil rights movement, he was among like minds. Commentators say these pastors’ sexual charisma was a fundamental part of their appeal to congregations.

Sleeping with female members was the norm rather than the exception and King himself admitted that he didn’t know a single black preacher who was chaste.

As the veteran activist Michael Harrington delicately phrased it, the movement was ‘not at all a sour-faced, pietistic’ endeavour. ‘Everybody was out getting laid.’ Or trying to.

One of King’s most distinguished biographers, Taylor Branch, revealed how—on King’s trip to Norway to collect the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize—members of his entourage were found running after naked or near-naked prostitutes in the Oslo hotel where they were staying. Only a desperate appeal to hotel security saved them from being thrown out.

Branch also detailed how FBI agents bugged King’s hotel room in Washington in January 1964 and recorded him in adulterous full flow. ‘I’m f*****g for God! I’m not a negro tonight!’ he could be heard shouting.

The same year, the FBI anonymously sent King a ‘highlights’ tape of his sexual groaning and dirty jokes, along with a message that read: ‘You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal, fraudulent self is bared to the nation.’

King interpreted this as a call for him to commit suicide, though FBI insiders later said they were simply seeking his resignation from the civil rights movement.

The FBI also sent damning evidence to his colleagues, politicians and major media outlets (who, for reasons unclear, declined to publicise them).

. . .

[T]here’s another mystery: why, having collected the evidence, did the government never make more of these highly incriminating tapes? Many senior government figures—not least the formidable J. Edgar Hoover—would have exposed King like a shot.

But, according to Taylor Branch, while President Lyndon Johnson felt betrayed by King over his public opposition to the Vietnam War, he baulked at using the FBI’s dossier against him.

It’s not clear why his predecessor, JFK, also stayed his hand, but given his own philandering, perhaps he thought it would be hypocritical.

When he got the tape, King was surprised to learn that the FBI knew so much about his private life, but he also told friends it was none of their business. The FBI tape was also sent to Coretta: she claimed she could not make out what was going on and ignored it.

Later she admitted she had never once discussed infidelity with King, saying: ‘I just wouldn’t have burdened him with anything so trivial . . . all that other business just didn’t have a place in the very high-level relationship we enjoyed.’

. . .

[O]ne wonders what he would think of the almost god-like adulation he receives today.

His wife and friends said he was racked by guilt about his personal failings. He found it uncomfortable to be put on a pedestal when all he wanted to do was end the injustice of segregation.

On Sundays, at his Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, King would tell his congregation—without being too specific—that he was a ‘sinner’.

He added: ‘There is a Mr Hyde and a Dr Jekyll in all of us . . . you don’t need to go out this morning saying that Martin Luther King is a saint.’

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407403/Sex-tapes-FBI-smears-double-life-human-saint-The-Martin-Luther-King-story.html

In Washington, it has been said for many years that King had three women just before he was killed; and that his sexual appetite was enormous, like so many politicians—such as John F. Kennedy.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/

Like

9 10 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama’s Welfare Socialism Sparked The US Government Shutdown, Not The American Constitution

American founder weeping

This is the opinion of Dr. Tim Stanley, a historian of the United States, writing in the UK’s Telegraph:

One thing often heard in media commentary on the shutdown: what must the Chinese think when the US can’t even keep its government open? The correct answer: who cares? China’s a communist state—its government never sleeps. America’s a democracy—if it has an honest disagreement with itself then it debates it openly within the context of law and the Constitution. If things must shutdown for a bit, so be it.

The Founding Fathers divided the US government in order to keep it limited. No, they never thought things would break down quite this way, but then they never thought that elected officials would try to grow the government so large. Since the 1930s, a series of administrations has tried to expand the responsiblities of the federal government far beyond its original remit, usually bypassing the Constitution in order to avoid breaking with it altogether (covert action signed off by the executive, generously interpreting the Commerce Clause etc). Crucially, this was done by both parties with fairly equal contempt for the founding principles of their republic. Democrats gave us the Great Society, Republicans gave us Medicare part D, the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

But in recent years things have gotten a lot worse. To understand the roots of the present crisis you have to understand how revolutionary the Democratic power grab of 2008-2010 was. Realising that their time in charge of all three parts of the government was short, the Dems tried to do as much as possible in those two years—which meant taking a leap towards refashioning America into a social democracy. The auto industry got a bailout with a nice sweet-heart deal for the unions. Welfare jumped an astonishing 32 per cent, with the outcome that by 2012 roughly 100 million Americans were getting some kind of benefit with the average outlay being $9,000. On top of all of this, Obama came up with Obamacare—the programme behind the shutdown. Crucially, the Democrats did not negotiate with the Republicans over its content and the only way they could get its patently unAmerican concept of a mandated-purchase into law was for the Supreme Court to redefine it as a tax. If the Republicans oppose it then they do so because it is expensive, may do damage to business and isn’t concomitant with the American Way.

So the Republicans are feeling obstinate. But so are the Democrats. It’s often forgotten that the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to approve a budget for three years—that’s why it should could come as no surprise that they refused to do so again this time. And what won’t the Senate Democrats budge on? A one year delay in funding for Obamacare and a prohibition on lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care. If the Republicans are using their power to hold the Democrats hostage then the Democrats are using their power to hold the Republicans hostage. In fact, it’s less of a hostage situation than it is a Mexican standoff over a large cache of taxpayers’ money.

It all sounds calamitous, but when the US government shuts down what does it really amount to? Museums and parks are closed (and will probably soon reopen thanks to emergency legislation) but Social Security checks still go out and the military will still be paid. Some 800,000 federal workers have been sent home early but this only amounts to 20 per cent of the total federal workforce. That’s right. The US government has grown so big that 800,000 people is a drop in the ocean. Of course, things will be a lot worse when it comes to debating raising the debt ceiling. A default really would be disastrous for America and the entire global economy and everything should be done to avoid it.

The bottom line is that while America’s democracy is functioning the way it was intended to do (debating, mulling and even stalling grand utopian projects), its politicians are failing to live up to the standards and values set by the Founding Fathers. The largest party in Congress isn’t the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s become the welfare/warfare crowd who have been spending and spending for the last century like it has no consequences. And what has pushed America to the brink in the past few years has been an overambitious, highly partisan President willing to gamble everything on social reform. So enough grumbling about a broken America—let’s talk more about failed policies.

Finally, if you think China worrying about American democracy is hard enough to swallow, consider this. Al Jazeera says that the Republicans are guilty of “extremist actions”. Al Jazeera. “Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle…”

See http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100239347/us-government-shutdown-obamas-welfare-socialism-sparked-this-crisis-not-the-constitution/ (emphasis added)

Having worked on Capitol Hill and with government all of my legal career, it is nice to find an article that tells the truth. Tim Stanley is correct.

The only thing that I question are his statements:

[T]hings will be a lot worse when it comes to debating raising the debt ceiling. A default really would be disastrous for America and the entire global economy and everything should be done to avoid it.

Even here, the “game of chicken” may proceed; and the scare tactics and “climate of fear” spread by Obama and his far-Left Liberals may fall on deaf ears and be farfetched.

Shut down the government: it has happened, and few Americans are losing any sleep over it. The same thing may be true about a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Obama’s “Chicken Little-The Sky is Falling” approach is not working, inter alia, because Americans just witnessed his humiliating Syrian debacle.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/is-obama-the-new-nixon/#comment-2907 (“Obama’s Epic Incompetence”); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/is-obama-the-new-nixon/#comment-3079 (“[Moody's] says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing“)

. . .

Also, any notion that the U.S. will lose its borrowing ability is utter nonsense. In borrowing money (e.g., for a large real estate project), it is always desirable to be the largest debtor of a small bank. Indeed, it is often said that the borrower “owns” the bank, because the borrower’s default can take down the bank.

The same thing applies to China, for example. If American purchases from China were to collapse, China would collapse economically. The Chinese leadership has to do business with us, and play ball with us, or suffer the consequences. “Devious” though they may be, they are not stupid.

See also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/#comment-2251 (“China’s Hard Landing”)

. . .

Americans detest government, and rightly so. It is an integral part of the American psyche today. Barack Obama keeps emitting scare tactics; and we are getting very used to them, like the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” over and over again.

Of much greater concern to the American people on a daily basis is the damage that Obamacare may do to their health.

As Stanley notes correctly, Barack Obama and his Democrats are to blame. Even before the latest crisis, Obama had used his “Sequestration” to drastically cut our military, and even cut off White House tours:

Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that WhiteHouse Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/tours-and-events; see also http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/02/Obama-Administration-Decided-to-Block-Access-to-Memorials (“OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DECIDED TO BLOCK ACCESS TO MEMORIALS“) and http://freebeacon.com/shutdown-theater/ (“[Obama Administration] Orders Closure of Park that Receives No Federal Funding“) and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/doves-and-peaceniks-no-more-these-democrats-relish/ (“Democrats relish the role of bullies“) and http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-fuckyo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/ (“Need health care coverage? Just dial 1-800-FUCKYO to reach Obamacare’s national hotline“) and http://washingtonexaminer.com/military-keeps-camp-david-open-halts-nfl-baseball-coverage-to-troops-overseas/article/2536819 (Obama cuts NFL, baseball coverage to troops overseas) and http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nbc-police-remove-vietnam-war-veterans-memorial-wall_759267.html (“Police Remove Vietnam War Veterans at Memorial Wall“) and http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/Feds-Try-to-Close-the-OCEAN-Because-of-Shutdown (“FEDS TRY TO CLOSE THE OCEAN BECAUSE OF SHUTDOWN“) and http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/08/fox-news-poll-majority-would-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling/ (“If it were up to the American public, they would vote no [on raising the nation’s debt limit so the federal government can borrow more money]—with a majority saying the debt limit should only be raised after major spending cuts have been made“) and http://weaselzippers.us/2013/10/09/gross-u-s-taxpayers-shelled-out-634320919-to-build-obamacare-website/ (“U.S. Taxpayers Shelled Out $634,320,919 To Build Obamacare Website“) and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/obamas-national-debt-rate-on-track-to-double/ (U.S. DEBT DOUBLES SINCE OBAMA…) and http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/15/palin-defaulting-on-our-national-debt-is-an-impeachable-offense/ (“[W]e don’t have enough money to continue to finance our ever-growing federal government (with our $17 trillion dollar national debt that has increased over 50% since Obama took office). . . . That’s why President Obama wants to increase the debt limit”)

Obama never set foot on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. Instead, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. His views are out of touch with most Americans who were born and raised here.

He is a Narcissist, a demagogue, a liar and incompetent; and his reelection in 2012 merely elevated and reinforced these qualities in him. Indeed, he has come to believe that he is invincible, politically; and he has set about to change America, much like Richard Nixon did after his landslide reelection victory in 1972.

Obama’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies are on display, each and every day, like Nixon’s anger and willingness to punish his enemies.

If you have any doubts whatsoever about such anger, which has undergirded Obama’s life and still does, read (or reread) his book “Dreams from My Father.” It is all there, in his own words.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/; see also http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100240627/barack-obamas-leviathan-even-when-the-us-government-is-shutdown-its-still-too-big/ (“[The Obama Administration] is engaging in high profile acts in an effort to exaggerate the impact of the shutdown”) and http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/illegal-immigration-the-solution-is-simple/#comment-3100 (“Immigration Reform Must Be Blocked Forever“) and http://wfpl.org/post/mcconnell-reid-deal-includes-2-billion-earmark-kentucky-project (“McConnell-Reid Deal Includes $2 Billion Earmark for Kentucky Project“)

. . .

Obamacare—the signature and arguably the only “accomplishment” of the Obama presidency—will be hung around Barack Obama’s neck like a dead albatross, politically. It is merely a function of time before this happens.

America’s founders must be weeping . . .

Like

2 11 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

NPR: Yellowstone County Treasurer Admits Sending Racist E-Mail Message About Obama

Ban of free speech

Montana Public Radio has published an article, which states:

Yellowstone County treasurer and county superintendent of schools, Max Lenington, says his use of racist and anti-gay slurs in an email were a private message to his sister, and reflected his anger that President Barack Obama was re-elected.

The Billings Gazette reports Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito is investigating whether there are grounds to recall Lenington for comments made in an email sent from his work computer last year.

News Director Sally Mauk spoke with Lenington this afternoon about the e-mail, which he confirms he sent. In the e-mail, Lenington says of Obama’s re-election, “It must mean there are more lesbians, queers, Indians, Mexicans, and n____ [slur for blacks] than the rest of us!”

Lenington admits people might be offended by the remarks.

“Possibly, but I wouldn’t say it in public…It was strictly a comment to my sweet sister,” Lenington said.

Lenington believes the slurs he used are commonly used in Montana.

“I was born and raised in central Montana and that’s kind of the way we talk,” he said.

Lenington has worked for Yellowstone county for over 40 years. His term ends on December 31st, 2014. He says he’s in discussion with the county attorney over whether he will resign over the remarks but says he’s getting lots of support to stay in office.

See http://mtpr.org/post/yellowstone-county-treasurer-admits-sending-racist-e-mail

First, racism is a fact of life in America today, and globally.

Second, all Americans and peoples of other countries should read Barack Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father,” written in his own words, if you have any doubts whatsoever about his core beliefs. And then view many of his actions and statements as president (e.g., regarding Trayvon Martin) against his own black racist sentiments.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

Third, ideally, there should not be any racism, period. However, Obama has played the “race card” repeatedly, which is reprehensible.

Fourth, every American’s e-mails should be private. Apparently, Lenington—whom I had never heard of, before reading this article—used his computer at work to send the message to his sister; and someone went through his e-mails, and disclosed this one to the public.

The very essence of the current NSA scandals involves the interception and disclosure of private messages. Americans are aghast that anyone or any government agency could intercept and read their private e-mail messages, or listen to or record their phone calls, and disclose the contents. And of course, they are correct.

Fifth, the very idea that “political correctness” or the thought or language “police” (e.g., in the form of Montana Public Radio) should exist, or be projected or imposed on others, violates this great nation’s basic guarantee of freedom of speech. It is repugnant.

This is why all public funding of PBS and NPR must cease. Among other things, clearly neither entity criticized the hateful comments and threats that were and still are directed toward former President George W. Bush.

Lastly, I believe in this country, and I believe in Americans of all colors, faiths and backgrounds. The United States is the only true melting pot in the world, with its populace representing a United Nations of the world’s peoples.

Yes, we fight and we even discriminate, but when times are tough—like after 9/11—we come together as one nation, which makes this country so great and special. Also, all of us or our ancestors came here from somewhere else. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”); see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/illegal-immigration-the-solution-is-simple/ (“Illegal Immigration: The Solution Is Simple”)

Like

5 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Left: Young Black Males Have Always Been Violent, So This Is Nothing New

Ann Coulter has written in an article:

On a break from pretending to believe they live in a country bristling with violent white racists, the Non-Fox Media have been trying to debunk stories about the “Knockout Game,” in which young black males approach random strangers and try to knock them out with one punch.

The left’s leading line of defense against the Knockout Game is to argue that young black males have always been violent, so, hey, this is nothing new.

You’re welcome, black America!

In Slate, Emma Roller wearily recounted other episodes of black-on-white violence in order to announce: “The ‘Knockout Game’ is a myth.”

Reminiscing about the flash mobs that shook many parts of the country a few years ago, Roller wrote: “I remember the summer of 2011, a story about a crowd of (black) teenagers at the Wisconsin State Fair randomly attacking fairgoers went viral as a sign of a burgeoning race war.”

So you see, stupid right-wingers, young black males have always been violent, so what’s the big deal about the Knockout Game? Your honor, my client’s not a killer; he’s a serial killer.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reached for a different example of monstrous black-on-white violence in order to dispute that the Knockout Game is anything new.

Looking like a translator for the deaf with all the air quotes he had to make for “supposed” “trend” and “Knockout Game,” Hayes compared it to what he called the fake trend of “wilding” after a mob of black youths violently attacked and raped a white woman jogging in New York’s Central Park in 1989. According to Hayes, “there never was such a thing” as wilding.

Whether the boys who were convicted of the crime did it or, as liberals now claim, a man already sentenced to life in prison did it, the Central Park jogger was brutally raped and nearly murdered by either one or several young black men. (They all did it—see Chapter 13 of my book “Demonic.”)

The following year, 1990, blacks committed 57 percent of all the violent crime against whites, while whites committed only 2 percent of the violent crime against blacks, according to the Department of Justice’s annual Victimization Report. Thanks for the memories, Chris!Oh, and contrary to Hayes’ proclamation, black men raping white women is something of a “trend”—at least according to FBI crime statistics. At least since 1997[, . . .] blacks have raped several thousand white women every year, while white-on-black rapes have numbered between “0.0″ and “Sample based on 10 or fewer.” (See Chapter 11 of “Mugged.”)

In a particularly incomprehensible defense of black America in Mediaite, Tommy Christopher denounced the “sketchy” news reports of “the so-called ‘Knockout Game’” by citing the video of a group of black teenagers walking past teacher Jim Addlespurger, when one of the black teens steps from the group and knocks the teacher out cold, and then they all laugh about the assault as they continue walking.

But Christopher helpfully notes that a cop said this “was just a random act of violence.” So don’t worry about the Knockout Game, white people—this is mostly just ordinary, everyday black-on-white violence.

Flash mobs, wilding, day-to-day black violence—talk about damning with faint praise!

Liberals have to work so hard to avoid noticing the astronomical crime rate among young black males that their brains freeze.

Roller attributed public interest in a story about mobs of young black males attacking families at a state fair to white people’s need to validate their “fear” that black people are dangerous. . . .

But Roller implied that blacks engaging in violence is wildly unusual: “When a few YouTube videos are able to convince terrified white folks that young black people are dangerous, they may as well assume that all cats can play the keyboard.”

Is a disproportionate amount of keyboard playing in the country being done by cats?

According to the FBI, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, who are about 12 percent of the population, committed 53 percent of all felony murders and 56 percent of non-felony murders. The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that young black men are 14 times more likely to commit murder than young white men.

White liberals know this. Blacks certainly know it. Despite the hoo-ha over George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin, most black people’s experience is not that white vigilantes are shooting them. For every one of those, there are 1,000 black teens killing other black people.

But if liberals took the first step toward sanity and admitted that young black men commit an awful lot of violent crime, they might have to ask why that is.

That’s a dangerous question for people who refuse to acknowledge the devastation of fatherless boys caused by liberal welfare policies. (See Chapter 6 of “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3″ to see how the British welfare system has created the same social disaster among hordes of white people.)

Unable to consider the obvious explanation—single-motherhood—liberals are left with nothing but genetic determinism.

So liberals defend young black males from the charge of playing a Knockout Game by telling us young black men are always violent.

Don’t worry, black America. White liberals have your back.

See http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/04/liberals-talk-race-and-crime-and-hilarity-ensues/

When I worked on the Brooke Amendment in the U.S. Senate, to help improve the conditions in public housing nationwide, we received numerous reports about young blacks terrorizing elderly blacks in the projects. Indeed, part of the money was to be used for greater security measures.

Like

6 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

The Legacies of Nelson Mandela

Mandela

Barack Obama has hated Apartheid in South Africa and revered Nelson Mandela for most of his adult life. To him, Apartheid was a stain on Mankind, and Mandela was his hero.

See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/world/africa/mandela-politics.html (“For Mandela, Reverence, but Criticism, Too”) and http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2013/12/16/131216ta_talk_gourevitch

An outgrowth of these beliefs has been Obama’s goals of rapprochement with Iran, and a lasting peace in the Middle East. However, just as Obama and the United States have been pursuing these goals, Benjamin Netanyahu has been doing whatever is necessary to sabotage such efforts.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/the-madness-of-benjamin-netanyahu/#comment-3049 (see also the article itself, as well as the other comments beneath it)

If anything, Mandela’s death may strengthen Obama’s resolve to end Apartheid in Israel, and to “tear down the wall.” This might be one of Obama’s greatest legacies, but it will not come about as long as Netanyahu leads Israel. To Obama, he embodies white oppression.

Like

24 12 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

What Was 2013’s Most Significant Story?

Obamas-no smiles

The dramatic failure of Obamacare is the biggest story, because it foretells the end of the Obama presidency—as the myth of Barack Obama collapses before the eyes of the world.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/is-obama-the-new-nixon/#comment-3231 (“Americans Finally Wake Up To Who Barack Obama Really Is“)

Like

16 04 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Obama Fans Racial Hatreds

In an editorial entitled, “Coalition of the Disappointed”—and subtitled, “Obama fires up racial and gender resentments to get out the vote”—the Wall Street Journal notes:

You can tell it’s an election year because so many noncrises are suddenly urgent priorities. Real median household income is still lower than it was in 2007, the smallest share of Americans is working since 1978, and the Russians are marching west, but Democrats are training fire on race, gender and the grievances of identity politics.

“We have this congenital disease, which is in midterm elections we don’t vote at the same rates,” President Obama said at a Houston fundraiser the other day. He means that the Obama Democrats are now what they call the “coalition of the ascendent,” made up of minorities, young people, single women and affluent, college-educated cultural liberals. The problem is that this year they may be a coalition of the disappointed, so Democrats are trying to scare them to the polls with pseudo-controversies.

Take last week’s East Room reception for feminist celebrity Lilly Ledbetter, when Mr. Obama declared that “today the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns; for African American women, Latinas, it’s even less. And in 2014, that’s an embarrassment. It is wrong.” He’s right that it’d be wrong, except he knows this isn’t close to true.

The “pay gap” is the ratio between median earnings for men and women, according to Census Bureau data. But adjust for hours worked, occupation, decisions about marriage and children, education and risk, and equal work means equal pay. The war on women is really a war on meaningful statistics.

To wit, applying the same broad median-earnings standard to the White House shows that female staffers make only 88 cents on the dollar of their male counterparts. The White House should indict itself for disparate-impact bias. Spokesman Jay Carney defended the hornet’s nest of sexism where he works by insisting, “That the problem exists in a lot of places only reinforces the need to fix it.”

So how’s that working out? Readers may remember the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that was the first bill Mr. Obama signed in January 2009. The measure was little more than a trial lawyer payoff, but Mr. Obama called it “a simple fix to ensure fundamental fairness” and end the injustice of “women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every dollar men earn.” Five years later, they’ve lost a penny by his own reckoning.

Still, women don’t have it as bad as Attorney General Eric Holder, who in a speech last week departed from his prepared remarks to feel sorry for himself after a testy House hearing. “What Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” he asked. “What President has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Mr. Holder should recall the treatment of his predecessor Alberto Gonzales before implying that his critics are racist, but then he sees Jim Crow everywhere. In his speech before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, he said the right to vote faces “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”

Some 34 states now require voters to show some form of government-issued photo identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, up from zero in 2006. The states say such rules uphold public confidence in the integrity of the ballot.

And if the states are secretly trying to suppress minority turnout, they’re doing a lousy job. The Census reports that the black voting rate rose 13 percentage points from 1996 to 2012. At 66.2% black participation in 2012 surpassed the rate for non-Hispanic whites (64.1%).

Yet every Democrat seems to have received the white supremacist conspiracy memo. Last week Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference that “I think race has something to do with the fact that they are not bringing up an immigration bill. I’ve heard them say to the Irish, ‘If it was you, it would be easy.'” Yes, the Irish. Steve Israel of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added that “elements” of the GOP are “animated by racism.”

This color-by-numbers strategy may prove a tougher sell for young adults, who are among the biggest losers of the Obama era. The millennials (those age 18 to 33) are the first generation since World War II to be poorer and more jobless than their parents at the same stage of life, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2012 Mitt Romney won a majority of voters who entered the electorate (i.e., turned 18) during Mr. Obama’s first term, reports political scientist John Sides.

Still, student loan debt has swelled to about $1.2 trillion, and interest rates on federal bonds are likely to climb this July, so look for Mr. Obama to promise one more refinancing discount. Other millenials can console themselves with free birth control, even if ObamaCare forces them to pay artificially higher premiums to subsidize their elders.

***

Transparent cynicism is the lifeblood of politics, but it’s nonetheless notable that the only way Democrats think they can win is by dividing the electorate into blocs and inflaming racial and other tensions. Governing so far to the left has polarized U.S. politics, and now the party of the government status quo is deliberately deepening the national divide because they think that is the only way to save the at-risk population that is the Senate Democratic majority.

All this is more than a country mile away from the era of political comity that Mr. Obama promised in 2008. America’s largest problems don’t have an ethnicity or gender, and most of them could be ameliorated with faster economic growth that would benefit everyone. Sadly, the liberal strategy of cultivating resentment will only get worse as the year drags on.

See http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579501572356272540

There should not be any doubts that Barack Obama is a racist.

If you have a modicum of doubt, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which sets forth his core beliefs in his own words. It provides a roadmap to how he has been governing, and what we can expect during the remaining years of his presidency.

The book is shocking, and I read it twice after the 2008 election, to learn about our new president. I took copious notes and converted them into an article, and tried to be as objective as possible.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

The book is shocking to this day; and every American who wants to understand our president should read it.

Like

7 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama And Racism

Obama and racism

I have been on the Web for more than 20 years, and have seen many of the items that circulate. They come through “chain letters” from friends, acquaintances and total strangers. Some are not worth opening at all. Others can provide occasional humor, or even stimulate thinking.

The message above—whether it is factually correct or not—is making the rounds; and it is important because it underscores the racial divide in America today. Many black Americans feel victimized; and whites feel there is a “double standard” with Barack Obama as our president. One of his greatest failings is being a divider, and not a healer or uniter.

He and his presidency offered enormous promise and opportunities to heal the racial divides. However, American politics being what it is, he has appealed to his base of black voters, and lost vast swaths of white America in the process. According to the 2000 census, non-Hispanic or Latino white Americans constitute approximately 70 percent of the population.

See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census#Relation_between_ethnicity_and_race_in_census_results

Like

14 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Black America’s Rising Woes Under Obama

Black America hurt by Obama

The UK’s Financial Times has an article that addresses this subject which is subtitled, “Those who have fared worst under this president are the ones who love him the most”:

A paradox haunts America’s first black president. African-American wealth has fallen further under Barack Obama than under any president since the Depression. Yet they are the only group that still gives him high ratings. So meagre is Mr Obama’s national approval rating that embattled Democrats have made him unwelcome in states that twice swept him to power. Those who have fared worst under Mr Obama are the ones who love him the most. You would be hard-pressed to find a better example of perception-driven politics. As the Reverend Kevin Johnson asked in 2013: “Why are we so loyal to a president who isn’t loyal to us?”

The problem has taken on new salience with the resignation of Eric Holder. America’s first black attorney-general has tried to correct the gulag-sized disparities in prison sentencing between blacks and whites. His exit leaves just two African-Americans in Mr Obama’s cabinet. Given the mood among Republicans, it is hard to imagine the US Senate confirming a successor to Mr Holder who shares his priorities.

Mr Obama shot to prominence in 2004 when he said there was no black or white America, just the United States of America. Yet as the continuing backlash to the police shooting of an unarmed young black man in Ferguson has reminded us, Mr Obama will leave the US at least as segregated as he found it. How could that be? The fair answer is that he is not to blame. The poor suffered the brunt of the Great Recession and blacks are far likelier to be poor. By any yardstick – the share of those with subprime mortgages, for example, or those working in casualised jobs – African-Americans were more directly in the line of fire.

Without Mr Obama’s efforts, African-American suffering would have been even greater. He has fought Congress to preserve food stamps and long-term unemployment insurance – both of which help blacks disproportionately. The number of Americans without health insurance has fallen by 8m since the Affordable Care Act came into effect. Likewise, no president has done as much as Mr Obama – to depressingly little effect – to try to correct the racial bias in US federal sentencing. Bill Clinton was once termed “America’s first black president”. But it was under Mr Clinton that incarceration rates rose to their towering levels.

By no honest reckoning can Mr Obama be blamed for the decline in black America’s fortunes. Yet the facts are deeply unflattering. Since 2009, median non-white household income has dropped by almost a 10th to $33,000 a year, according to the US Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances. As a whole, median incomes fell by 5 per cent. But by the more telling measure of net wealth – assets minus liabilities – the numbers offer a more troubling story.

The median non-white family today has a net worth of just $18,100 – almost a fifth lower than it was when Mr Obama took office. White median wealth, on the other hand, has inched up by 1 per cent to $142,000. In 2009, white households were seven times richer than their black counterparts. That gap is now eightfold. Both in relative and absolute terms, blacks are doing worse under Mr Obama.

Why then do African-Americans still give him such stellar ratings? To understand, listen to the dog whistles of Mr Obama’s detractors. The more angrily the Tea Party reviles Mr Obama, the more ardently African-Americans back him. When Newt Gingrich, the former Republican leader, described Mr Obama as a “food stamp president”, the subtext was plain. It was too when Joe Wilson, a Republican lawmaker, interrupted Mr Obama’s address to Congress to call him a liar – an indignity none of his predecessors suffered.

Likewise, no president has been forced to authenticate that he was born in the US (rather than Kenya). Donald Trump then demanded proof that the president had attended Harvard. How could a black man get so far without cheating? That at least is what many black Americans heard.

Then there is Mr Obama’s impact as a role model. With the exception of the fictional Cosby Show – the 1980s sitcom about an upbeat black household – many whites have little experience of intact black families. The latter remains dishearteningly uncommon. Barack and Michelle Obama have done much to counteract that image.

There is a prominently displayed photograph in the White House showing the moment that a young black boy touched Mr Obama’s hair to compare it with his own. “So, what do you think?” asked Mr Obama. “Yes, it does feel the same,” said the child. That episode conveys something no Fed statistician can measure.

Black Americans seem to grasp something many of Mr Obama’s white supporters often forget. If the opposing party controls Congress and wants to make trouble, it can stop almost any White House initiative in its tracks. Most voters hold the president accountable for the big trends affecting their lives, particularly economic. But there are times when this is not fully deserved. Under this president at least, black America’s insights may be a step ahead of the rest.

See http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5455efbe-4fa4-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3G4fPgCdf (emphasis added)

As a whole, African-Americans are the last hired and the first fired, except in government.

Other ethnic groups have come to our shores, but America’s blacks remain at the bottom of the totem pole, while the more recent arrivals climb above them (e.g., those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage, Asian Americans).

America’s first and perhaps last “Affirmative Action” president has only made their conditions worse.

Like

25 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

The 2014 Race Card

Racism Ruins Lives

In a Wall Street Journal editorial, it is stated:

President Obama was elected on a promise to unite the country, and in particular millions of Americans hoped he could help to transcend racial divisions. So one of the great tragedies of his Presidency is that he and the Democratic Party have used race for political purposes in ways that exacerbate tensions—no more so than this election year.

Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are so bad that Democrats will need to drive a huge turnout to drag many incumbents over the victory line. The core of their political base are African-Americans, more than 90% of whom still register high approval of the President, and many of whom reside in battleground Senate states like Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina. The party’s problem is that black turnout often drops sharply in midterms.

Hope and change are long gone, so Democrats are now playing the race card to scare black Americans to the ballot box. At the milder end of this spectrum is the Democratic National Committee’s appeal that the midterms should be a gesture in racial solidarity. “GET HIS BACK,” reads an ad the party committee is running in black newspapers. “Republicans have made it clear that they want our President—Barack Obama—to fail. If you don’t vote this November 4, they win.”

The harder, nasty edge is playing out in individual campaigns. The Democratic Party of Georgia is distributing a flyer that shows two young black children holding signs that say “Don’t Shoot.” The flyer reads: “If You Want To Prevent Another Ferguson In Their Future . . . VOTE.”

The handout refers to Ferguson, Mo. shooting victim Michael Brown, noting that in Ferguson 67% of the population is black, while “94% of its police force are white.” What Ferguson has to do with pressing the Senate candidacy of white Georgia Democrat Michelle Nunn isn’t clear, other than that Ms. Nunn can’t win without a resounding black vote.

In North Carolina, black residents have received flyers that show a lynching scene, with the superimposed words: “ Kay Hagan doesn’t win! Obama’s impeachment will begin! Vote in 2014.” The flyers are attributed to the “Concerned Citizens of Cumberland County,” and no wonder its authors want to remain anonymous.

In Maryland, where Democrat Anthony Brown is running to become the state’s first black Governor, the state Democratic Party has released a flyer showing pictures of a civil-rights march, a “colored waiting room” sign, and Donald Trump alongside the words: “Where’s the birth certificate?” The flyer ends: “In Maryland, it’s our turn to take an important step in the journey . . . Vote for Anthony Brown.”

Democrats are also building on the fears stoked by Eric Holder ’s Justice Department about voter ID laws. Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Grimes is running a radio ad in urban areas in which a male narrator claims she is a “champion” for civil rights. The ad goes on to say that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell “has been leading the Republican effort to take away our voting rights. Just like he blocked everything from getting done in Washington, he’s blocking the ballot box and trying to silence our voices.”

Some silence: Black voter turnout exceeded white turnout in states like Georgia and Indiana after voter ID laws passed.

All this brings to mind a young presidential candidate named Barack Obama, who warned in 2008 that Republicans would play the race card. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” he told a rally. Mr. Obama won, and won again, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from rolling out that same racism charge at any opportunity, using it in particular as a tool to drive minority turnout in elections.

Such racial exploitation is possible because the two U.S. political parties are so divided along racial lines. The appeal wouldn’t work if Republicans took 40% of the black vote, instead of the 10% or less they get in the Obama era. For that the GOP is partly responsible for not trying harder.

But Democrats do themselves no credit and the country no good by playing up racial divisions for partisan ends. Alas, they’ll keep doing it until voters stop rewarding them with votes.

See http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-2014-race-card-1414192776 (emphasis added)

There is no question that Barack Obama is a racist. If you have any doubts whatsoever, please read his book “Dreams from My Father,” which is summarized in the first article of this blog, with page citations to the book itself.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

It is all there, in his own words: his core beliefs, which undergird how he has been governing as America’s president, and what we can expect during the remainder of his presidency.

Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 161 other followers

%d bloggers like this: