Obama Backpedals on Afghanistan Corruption

In a press conference Friday, September 10, 2010, Barak Obama said:

[W]e’re going to try to make sure that as part of helping President Karzai stand up a broadly accepted, legitimate government, that corruption is reduced. [sic]
And we’ve made progress on some of those fronts. I mean, when it comes to corruption, I’ll just give you an example. Four years ago, 11 judges in the Afghan legal system were indicted for corruption. This year, 86 were indicted for corruption. We have seen Afghan-led efforts that have gone after police commanders, significant business people in Afghanistan. But we’re a long way from where we need to be on that.

And every time I talk to President Karzai I say that, as important as it is for us to help you train your military and your police forces, the only way that you are going to have a stable government over the long term is if the Afghan people feel that you're looking out for them.  And that means making sure that the tradition of corruption in the government is reduced.
And we’re going to keep on putting pressure on them on that front.

The “Afghan-led efforts” Obama mentions, often involve two Afghan anti-corruption law enforcement units, the Sensitive Investigation Unit and the Major Crimes Task Force, which are trained and mentored by the United States and Britain.

“All very well and good,” you might say? The Obama Administration is insisting the Afghan government do everything in its power to fight corruption?

But wait!

Just a few days later, on September 13, the Washington Post reported:

Senior Obama administration officials have concluded they need to step back from promoting American-style law enforcement as the main means of fighting corruption in Afghanistan because of the rift it has caused with President Hamid Karzai.

In other words, Obama will back off from his recent remarks, and let Karzai and the Afghan government handle the corruption problem. Typically, as he has done since he entered office, Obama tells the American people one thing, then does just the opposite.

Well, that’s reasonable, isn’t it? After all, isn’t this an internal matter of a sovereign nation?  Every government has some corruption. What’s the big deal?

According to data compiled by Transparency International, a bi-partisan organization which exposes corruption around the globe, in 2009, Afghanistan ranked as the second most corrupt nation on Earth, (it may not surprise you to learn that Somalia earned the Blue Ribbon and came in first).

Moreover, if the evidence is to be believed, President Hamid Karzai’s family, allies and the Afghan government seem to be at the very heart of Afghanistan’s corruption woes.

Woes which spread far outside the borders of that country and into the homes and lives of ordinary citizens of the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

According to a September 6 story in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, the Afghan Central Bank was forced to intervene to prevent the collapse of Kabul Bank, which had given, (in many cases, off-the-books), loans to shareholders, family and allies of President Hamid Karzai. These shady deals are said to amount to well over $100 million dollars.

The Telegraph article states:

[Kabul Bank Chairman] Farnood was ordered to hand over £100 million of apartments and villas in Dubai which he had purchased with the banks money for figures including Mahmoud Karzai, the president's brother.

Haseen Fahim, brother of [Afghanistan’s] vice president Mohammad Qasim Fahim, has borrowed tens of millions of pounds from the bank…

But that's not all. By a long shot.

President Karzai’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is reputed  to be the wealthiest figure in Afghanistan’s drug-trafficking network and in league with the vicious “Los Zetas” Mexican drug cartel which has murdered hundreds of civilians and smuggles drugs into the United States, (including, presumably, some of Ahmed’s).

Mohammad Zia Salehi, one of Karzai's senior national security advisors, was arrested by a U.S. trained Afghan law enforcement unit on charges of giving and receiving bribes, but ordered released by President Karzai, (in an amusing, if ironic, side-note, one of the many charges against Salehi was for taking a bribe not to investigate bribery).

The Afghan Attorney General is threatening to re-arrest Salehi, in something of a standoff in which President Karzai has so far held the upper hand: Karzai has accused the anti-corruption units of “violating human rights principles.”

Human rights principles? The armed officers entered Salehi’s home in the middle of the night and arrested him. Oh! Well, stop the presses! Based on wiretaps and other evidence of graft, armed officers arrest the President’s buddy, after-hours. There’s a human rights violation, all right. I’m shocked. Flog them mercilessly.

There would seem to be plenty of evidence for corruption in these tales alone, but here’s one that should make you sit up and gasp.  According to a June 2010 Wall Street Journal article:

More than $3 billion in cash has been openly flown out of Kabul International Airport in the past three years, a sum so large that U.S. investigators believe top Afghan officials and their associates are sending billions of diverted U.S. aid and logistics dollars and drug money to financial safe havens abroad. [Emphasis mine]

Officials believe some of the cash, if not most, is siphoned from Western aid projects and U.S., European and NATO contracts to provide security, supplies and reconstruction work for coalition forces in Afghanistan. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization spent about $14 billion here last year alone. Profits reaped from the opium trade are also a part of the money flow, as is cash earned by the Taliban from drugs and extortion…

It would seem Afghanistan’s “internal” corruption scandal reaches right into the pockets of American taxpayers, and those of any nation giving aid to the Afghans.

Karzai’s family and cronies are using your tax dollars, Dear Reader, to line their bank vaults and buy luxury villas. Some of them  are, so the evidence would seem to suggest, getting rich by smuggling drugs across our borders through the hands of some of the most bloodthirsty thugs in Mexico.

American and NATO troops and Drug Enforcement officers have died trying to stem the tide of drugs flowing out of Afghanistan and into their countries, yet the drug problem there seems to be supported by—certainly involving—members of the regime itself. An obviously corrupt regime supported by the Obama Administration, with U.S. tax dollars.

Much of the evidence points at President Karzai, though nothing seems to point directly to him; his fingerprints don’t seem to be on the cookie jar—though how often did Al Capone do his own dirty work? Obviously, Karzai’s friends, family and members of his government  are involved in the drug-trafficking and corruption, and one would have to be naïve, indeed, to suppose that Karzai himself is not reaping some benefits.

But! Afghan parliamentary elections take place on Saturday, September 18, so perhaps some of the corrupt politicians will be voted out of office, right?

Don’t hold your breath, folks. Looks like the election is rigged. Just like the last one.

Afghanistan’s 2009 elections, which saw Hamid Karzai elected to a second term as president, also saw widespread election fraud. Reporters for the BBC bought “restricted” and official voter identification cards on the open market. Reporters for Britain’s Guardian filmed the seizure, by election monitors, of reams of ballots pre-marked for Hamid Karzai. Voters had to dip a finger into a jar of indelible ink to mark them so they could not vote more than once. The “indelible” ink easily washed off.

Saturday’s election already shows signs of fraud, and according to the Christian Science Monitor, suspected war criminals will be on the ballot, the article implicating Karzai:

…President Karzai himself cut deals with warlords and men implicated in past crimes ahead of last year's presidential election because of the votes they could deliver. The choice of Mohammad Qasim Fahim as Karzai's vice presidential running mate was emblematic of this trend; Fahim has long been implicated in possible war crimes from the 1990s and is widely perceived by many Afghans to be connected to criminal gangs.

And Karzai has the audacity to accuse the police of human rights violations?

Considering all the evidence of election fraud, war criminals in office, graft, corruption, human rights violations, American taxpayer money used to buy luxury villas and expensive cars, why on Earth is Obama suddenly putting on the kid gloves and playing patty-cake with Karzai? How can the President of the United States consider, even for a moment, kow-towing to the whims of this two-bit  gangster?

Has Obama no dignity? No sense of justice? No basic understanding of the concept of Right-and-Wrong?

Does Obama not have what it takes—as he has shown so often since he assumed the Office of the Presidency—to be the leader of the American people?

It would seem not.

Technorati Tags: Obama,Karzai,Afghanistan,corruption,tax dollars,election,fraud,bribes,bribery,graft,war criminal,human rights

Bribery Is Alive And Well: Obama Appoints 3 New Ambassadors

Ambassadors bought their cushy new jobs

“Dad, you have got to get me out of here. Talk to Senator Griswold. After all, you paid good money for him.”

—Major Charles Emerson Winchester, from the TV series M.A.S.H.

From Wikipedia, (Note: I rarely consult Wikipedia, but this page somehow escaped Wikipedia’s apparent policy of hosting only laughably erroneous drivel):

Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient.

Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty.

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.

The buying and selling of ambassadorships in the United States is certainly nothing new.

Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson’s spoils systems included ambassadorial posts for top partisan allies.

Some Presidents such as the late and unlamented Richard Nixon were more avaricious.

In June 1971, Nixon told H.R. Haldeman, then White House Chief of Staff:

My point is that anybody who wants to be an ambassador must at least give $250,000… [about $1.3 million in 2009 dollars]

The contributors have got to be, I mean, a big thing, and I’m not gonna do it for political friends and all that crap.

Herbert W. Kalmbach, Nixon’s personal attorney and Deputy Finance Chairman for the Committee to Re-elect the President, (an organization possessing the most amusing acronym of CREEP), spent time, (though far, far, too little), in the crossbar hotel for arranging the sale of ambassadorships involving J. Fife Symington ($100,000) and Ruth Farkas ($300,000).

But the Nixon administration’s practice of trading foreign postings for campaign cash didn’t disappear—campaign reform laws drove it underground.

Simply writing a check doesn’t work any more. These days, the rich and connected are expected to raise money for the candidate from their well-to-do friends as “bundlers.”

According to opensecrets.org:

Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle."

Take Public Servant Obama’s latest ambassadorial appointments:

• Alan D. Solomont, ambassador to Spain
• Barry B. White, ambassador to Norway
• William E. Kennard, U.S. representative to the European Union—a position which carries the rank of ambassador.

Together, Solomont, White and Kennard bundled more than $1 million combined toward Obama's election efforts. Overall, they—along with their immediate family members—contributed nearly $2 million to federal candidates since 1989.

Solomont and Kennard each bundled more than half a million dollars to Obama's presidential campaign.

White bundled between $100,000 and $200,000. The exact amounts are unknown because the presidential campaigns provided only broad ranges when they disclosed information about their bundlers.

Solomont has been a long-time money-raising force in Democratic circles and headed Obama's fundraising efforts in the Northeast. He has been a prolific contributor to federal candidates and committees and along with his wife and children, has donated about $1.8 million since 1989—all of which has gone to Democrats.

This ranks Solomont as the largest personal contributor among Obama's ambassador picks to date, edging out donor and ambassador to Germany Philip Murphy by more than a quarter-million dollars.

Solomont was the CEO of a company called ADS Group, the biggest nursing home chain in the northeast, which is where he made his fortune.

In the midst of Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign, (in which Solomont was also a major money-finder), as Time magazine reported, Solomont visited Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala:

…with a team of lobbyists to press for less stringent enforcement of nursing-home regulations. Solomont…kept on lobbying throughout the campaign to win major concessions for his industry over the objections of consumer advocates. He got much of what he wanted.

Kind of guy you want living next door? Or as an ambassador?

While less prolific than Solomont, Barry White has also donated large sums to federal candidates, parties and committees. Along with his wife, White has contributed about $103,000 since 1989—of which 98 percent has gone toward Democrats.

And then there’s Louis B. Susman, who, having sent over $500,000 to Democrats since 1989, is now Public Servant Obama’s appointee as ambassador to the U.K.

Here’s what the Wall Street Journal had to say about Susman on 7 July 2009:

CHICAGO -- President Barack Obama has raised some eyebrows with his decision to send as ambassador to the U.K. a little-known retired investment banker -- and top fund-raiser -- from his hometown who has little diplomatic experience.

The post at the Court of St. James's in London is one of the most prestigious in U.S. diplomatic circles. Though largely ceremonial and rarely controversial, it is a prominent position given the close relations between the U.S. and the U.K. In recent years, it has usually gone to political boosters of the president.

Still, the nomination of Louis B. Susman, whose confirmation hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, has rankled some watchdog groups and political commentators who say he was chosen chiefly because he raised money for Mr. Obama's campaign. "Clearly his appointment has nothing to do with anything but money," said Craig Holman, a government-affairs lobbyist at watchdog group Public Citizen. [emphasis mine]

So really; how much diplomatic experience do these wastes-of-space appointees have?

Bupkis.

None? Are they all inexperienced dilettantes? I hear you ask.

Generally, only ambassadors to the important nations have no diplomatic experience whatsoever: The lesser nations get the career diplomats, who are, commonly, graduates of the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute.

For example, Joseph Kennedy, Sr., JFK’s father, was one of the wealthiest Americans of his generation and a major donor to Democratic candidates, (FYI, in 1973, mob boss Frank Costello said he and Joseph Kennedy Sr. had been bootlegging partners during prohibition and Harvard classmates say Kennedy Sr. supplied the illicit booze for alumni events: It is believed, by many, Kennedy made much of his fortune through such illegal activity).

Kennedy Sr.—with no training as a diplomat—was appointed ambassador to England in the run-up to World War II, but left the post in embarrassment after making an undiplomatic comment (“Democracy is finished in England”).

Public Servant Obama also nominated Lee Feinstein, a national security and nonproliferation expert at the Brookings Institution—so, some diplomatic experience, perhaps—as ambassador to Poland.

Feinstein has contributed about $5,250 to federal Democratic candidates, parties and committees since 1999, including $2,283 to Obama during the 2008 election.

Well, what about the career diplomats?

In recent weeks, Obama nominated a career member of the Foreign Service, Alberto M. Fernandez, to be ambassador to Equatorial Guinea in central Africa.

Another Foreign Service veteran, Mary Jo Wills, is slated to become the new ambassador to the African island nations of Mauritius and Seychelles.

That’s right: The scoundrels who can move money Obama’s way get the plum jobs.

The experts, the career diplomats—without deep pockets—get what’s left.

In the November 2006 Foreign Service Journal of the American Foreign Service Association, William Davnie, a Foreign Service Officer since 1981, had this to say in his article, Political Appointees: A Cost-Benefit Analysis:

Political-appointee ambassadors constitute a perennial source of amazement, frustration, anger and sometimes even inspiration among career diplomats and observers of American diplomacy.

A June 15 International Herald Tribune column by Thomas Raleigh called for an end to, or sharp restriction of, the number of “amateur (i.e., political appointee) ambassadors.”

Raleigh focuses on the general failure of such appointees to meet the standards of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, both in terms of the skills and experience necessary to do the job, and the fact that they tend to be major political donors, not foreign policy experts.

[P]olitical appointees, who are often CEO-types, are shocked to discover the limitations on their position when they actually arrive at an embassy. On the policy side, except in a few hot spots (where political appointees only rarely land, with Iraq and Afghanistan representing exceptions that prove the rule), policy is set, and news made, back in Washington.

Ambassadors are essentially seen as messengers, and thus of little interest unless they can truly build credibility on certain issues — a worthy goal but one most appointees can’t achieve, because they don’t have the background.

At a minimum, the White House needs to take the real challenges of diplomatic service into greater account when deciding which of the major donors will receive posts, and the Senate needs to exercise its role of advice and consent with greater care.

The issue at hand is not simply the background of the nominee, which may be sterling, but the ability of the nominee to meet the distinctive challenges of diplomatic service in a new organizational environment in a new country.

In other words, leave diplomacy to the diplomats and leave the damn, idiot money-grubbers at home.

Note: From opensecrets.org you may download a Microsoft Excel-compatible spreadsheet of campaign contribution data regarding all of Obama's ambassador picks here.

Obama Chia Pet: Racist?

I don’t know how I missed this one, but when I was recently informed about the Obama chia pet I had to put my two cents in.

A bit ago, Joseph Enterprises—the originators of the chia pet—announced their Obama chia models, seen in their copyrighted images on the right.

With this new chia tribute, Obama finds himself in company with a young Dean Stockwell (see the poster at lower right) countless extras from Star Trek, and—as you will see below—one of the most famous and respected  scientists of the twentieth century.

There are two Obama chia models: The “Determined” chia Obama, who looks far more confused than decisive, and the “Happy” chia Obama, which—I think—looks more like Scatman Crothers caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

However—what with all the Obama lunacy mania—I’m sure there are thousands of people who would want one one of these adorable little terra-cotta wonders brightening up an otherwise dark, dismal cubicle at, say, General Motors or the Federal Reserve.

But not the folks at Walgreens, who pulled the Obama pets from their stores.

According to Walgreens’ spokesman Robert Elfinger:

We got some complaints from people that they thought it was racist.

(Am I wrong or should a corporate spokesman not sound like a bookie?)

What?

Racist?

Read my article, Racist Russian Ad Features Obama—that my friends, is racist.

We’re talking about a chia pet here, not an effigy being burned on the streets of Tehran.

Image Copyright © Joseph Enterprises, Inc.

To the right, you will see another popular chia pet called “The Professor” but obviously a characterization of…

Come on now, lets not always see the same hands…

That’s right, Johnny—it’s Albert Einstein!

So—by extenuation—I suppose an Einstein chia pet is anti-Semitic?

Joseph Pedott, president of Joseph Enterprises and a Republican who voted for Obama, said he was stung by suggestions that there was something racist about Chia Obama, which, if left untrimmed, appears to give the 44th President a healthy, if very green, Afro.

“It's already a top seller and could be the biggest I have ever had," Pedott said. "Since when is an Afro racist?" he asked. “Owners can trim Chia Obama's ‘hair’ to any length they want.”

Imagine that: Barber…or, perhaps…gardener to the President! Wow!

Richard Nixon mask: Anti-Quaker?

So why the controversy?

Could it be that some people are themselves racist and use every piddling, insignificant opportunity they can find to drop the” race card” on whitey?

Easy to find out, let’s all chip in, send an Obama pet to Al Sharpton and watch the seismometers.

I, myself, would be honored if Joseph Enterprises were to offer a chia in my likeness, green afro and all.

They would, of course, have to leave a blank patch on top to represent my bald spot.

NASA Warming Scientist James Hansen Blasts Obama's 'Counterfeit' Climate Bill

Calls H.R. 2454—the Waxman-Markey bill “a monstrous absurdity...less than worthless!”

James Hansen, the rogue NASA researcher largely responsible for the “Global Warming” hysteria, rakes the “climate” bill over the coals

Excerpt from James Hansen’s statement:

It didn't take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama's agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked…

This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won't get there with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.

For all its "green" aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme…

The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It's less than worthless, [Emphasis mine] because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation.

Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws:

•It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

•It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.

•Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."

•It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, "businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense," thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.

End Hansen Excerpt.

To read the complete Hansen article go to this link.

My, my. A falling-out amongst thieves.

Even the most rabid climate-change lunatics are demonizing H.R. 2454, the so-called Waxman-Markey or Cap-and-Trade, (more like Graft-and-Tax), bill as an abomination.

For more on Hansen and global-warming go to this link.

Obama On U.S. Oil Imports: Lying Or Just Ignorant?

In a 6 July 2009 interview with the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Obama gave the same false information on U.S. oil imports he has been repeating since at least February of this year:

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.  Yet we import more oil today than ever before [Emphasis mine].

That quote is from the official White House transcript of the interview.

Obama was wrong in February and is wrong today.

The above chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, shows that U.S. oil imports peaked in November 2005 and have been declining ever since.

On the page at the above link, you may view a data table of the U.S. weekly oil imports from 1991 to date.

Now, I know the facts on this, you (now) know the facts on this, but the President of the United States keeps spouting inaccuracies about U.S. oil imports. I found this data very easily, and I would kinda think Obama—backed by dozens of staff and a trillion-dollar bureaucracy—could as well.

Yet Obama has been spouting this drivel since at least February 2009—even though the facts are laughably easy to obtain.

So my question is this:

Are Obama and his administration lying or simply ignorant and inept?

The answer has to be one of those two choices.

Frankly, neither answer sits well with me, nor should it with you.

Congressman Calls For Investigation Of DHS Report

US Representative Pete Hoekstra, (Republican, Mich.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, asked the Director of National Intelligence Ombudsman to investigate the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis report on “rightwing extremism” for evidence of unsubstantiated conclusions and political bias.

Congressman Hoekstra stated:

“This report has significant analytic shortcomings and does not deserve to be called an intelligence product… Our nation’s veterans and hardworking families that may be facing tough times should not be viewed as a threat and neither should citizens who oppose out-of-control federal spending and tax hikes.”

The House Intelligence Committee is responsible for authorizing funding for DHS Intelligence and Analysis, as well as conducting oversight of the office. Hoekstra sent his letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with a copy sent to Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. The DNI Ombudsman’s office is responsible for reviewing concerns about the quality and potential politicization of intelligence analysis.

Hoekstra was dismayed by the report’s sweeping generalizations about returning combat veterans and the suggestion that they would be susceptible to joining violent extremist groups. Hoekstra, who has sponsored a Constitutional Amendment to protect the rights of parents to raise their children, was also disappointed by the report’s assertion without substantiation that unemployed parents may foster “rightwing extremist” beliefs in their children.

Hoekstra added:

“Beyond apologizing for its obviously offensive references, the administration needs to get to the bottom of how and why a report like this was written, and put standards in place to keep it from happening again.”

You may download or view Congressman Hoekstra's letter to Napolitano as a PDF here.

You may download or view a copy of the DHS report as a PDF here.

Law Center Sues Napolitano Over DHS Report

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.

The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Napolitano tried to blunt the public furor over the Report with a half-hearted apology to veterans, but left out of her apology all the other Americans her Department targeted because of their political beliefs.

In fact, officials in DHS now admit that their internal office of civil liberties objected to the language in the extremism report, but the Department issued it anyway.

You may download or view a copy of the report as a PDF here.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated:

“Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of the Gestapo and any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents. This incompetently written intelligence assessment, which directs law enforcement officials across the country to target and report on American citizens who have the political beliefs mentioned in the report, will be used as a tool to stifle political opposition and opinions. It will give a pretext for opponents of those Americans to report them to police as rightwing extremists and terrorists. You can imagine what happens then.”

Thompson added:

“The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

• Opposes restrictions on firearms
• Opposes lax immigration
• Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
• Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
• Opposes same-sex marriage
• Has paranoia of foreign regimes
• Fear of Communist regimes
• Opposes one world government
• Bemoans the decline of US stature in the world
• Upset with loss of US manufacturing jobs to China and India
• …and the list goes on

The New White House Enemies List – Are You On It?

DHS brands millions of honest citizens, veterans, as right-wing extremists

Update: Quite a scandal DHS has caused with their hateful document. A law center is suing Napolitano over the report and Congressman Hoekstra, (among others), is demanding an investigation.

There are some disinformationalists on the internet and in the media who are shouting that said report was begun under the Bush administration, (and so it was), and that the report is, therefore, solely a Bush administration document. Nonsense. The DHS report was revised by DHS under the Obama administration, reviewed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and approved for release by her—despite objections from the DHS Office of Civil Liberties. Whether the report was begun under the Bush, Truman or Washington administrations, it was revised, approved and released by the Obama administration and Napolitano has attempted to stand by all of it. Then most of it. Then some of it.

The Department of Homeland Security has released a report titled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

The report, reviewed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano before its release, has outraged veterans groups, upset Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson, (Dem. Miss), and appalled just about everyone else.

You may download or view a copy of the report as a PDF here.

Let’s go over some excerpts from the DHS report, such as:

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment [sic] groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

So. The DHS can find no indication that the groups and individuals of which they seem to be concerned, plan to carry out violent acts. Just how does this constitute a “threat?” Well, it doesn’t. Look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of threat:

1. an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2. one that threatens
3. an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain>

Now look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of rhetoric:

1. the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2. a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech ; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3. verbal communication : discourse

In other words, people are conversing and they really haven’t made any threats.

Therefore, a copyeditor or English professor might re-write:

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

to read:

There is no evidence that any group—even those we label extremist—is planning unlawful or violent acts.

Um, okay. Well, gee, I’m scared, aren’t you?

“… violent antigovernment groups… have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.”

Just who are these unnamed “groups,” why are they classified as violent since the DHS says they aren't planning any violence and—if they are really, really, really thought to be such a potential threat—why on Earth aren’t they named in a document intended to brief law enforcement agencies?

Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit…

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of US jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. [Emphasis mine]

Now wait just a darn minute! In one line the DHS report acknowledges the reality of, “… a prolonged economic downturn… real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit…” and in another line pontificates, “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of US jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.”

Perceived? In that first quote, the DHS agrees that the world-wide economic debacle is real, yet in the next quote it is merely perceived. Napolitano actually read this before she released it?

Here’s some “chatter” from the New York Times—not exactly a bastion of “rightwing extremism:”

• Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January
• After the Bank Failure Comes the Debt Collector
• Housing Construction Fell in March, Dashing Hopes
• Retail and Price Data Show Continuing Economic Weakness
• Harder-Edged Warnings About Britain’s Economy
• Longer Unemployment for Those 45 and Older
• Russia May Turn to Foreign Banks for Loans to Cover Deficit
• Credit Crisis — The Essentials

I might stress that I have found no reports indicating that the New York Times plans to carry out violent acts. Maybe the DHS will investigate them anyway—just in case, you know?

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

I’m a little confused—they’re talking about the Republican Party here, right?

Way back in that first quote, the DHS says, “…and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts” and here, the DHS says, “but they have not yet turned to attack planning…” which seems to presume—based on no evidence whatsoever, according to the DHS’s own report—that they will turn to “attack planning.”

There’s a term for this… let me think… no, don’t tell me.. oh, yeah, that’s it… paranoia.

Or is it just an excuse to limit civil rights?

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Thus, according to this DHS report, if you are:

• a member of any religion, because—let’s face it—all religions hate the others, but more specifically, perhaps:
  • a Protestant who hates Satanists
  • a Catholic who hates abortion
• a governor who—like Brian Schweitzer, (Democrat, Montana)—rejects federal authority in favor of state or local authority
• a Libertarian who is anti-government

well, Sir—or Ma’am—you are a rightwing extremist! That certainly is a broad definition. Thank you, DHS!

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Whether you are a veteran or not, I’m sure you'll agree this outrageous insult to American troops stands on its own.

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical [sic] election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.

They’re still talking about the Republicans?

Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.

Translation: A lot of people don’t like Obama but they’re not doing anything unlawful. “… but stopping short of calls for violent action” seems to be deceitful, inflammatory rhetoric.

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States.

And I guess they were right.

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

And I guess they were right.

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive* recent gun control legislation as a threat to their [Constitutional] right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

“Many rightwing extremist groups perceive* recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms…” well, of course it does, and so the US Supreme Court has consistently agreed.

“… combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.” I think, rather, that the new administration’s heightened level of extremist paranoia is of far greater concern. You think the Patriot Act was a bad idea? This DHS document has Prior Restraint and Unconstitutional written all over it.

* “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

—Inigo Montoya.

This disgraceful report adds:

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the armed forces.”

This refers to the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not at all a civil rights organization, but a money-making machine with a bizarre, hateful agenda about which you may read here, here, here and here.

US News and World Report has an interesting twist on this story at: DHS Report on Leftists Not Like Napolitano Report on Right-Wing Extremism

For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov

I suggest you do so and register your revulsion. You should also contact Janet Napolitano and your Congress Critters:

Write Your Senators

Write Your Representative

Department of Homeland Security Comment Line: 202-282-8495

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

And when you do, don’t forget to ask, “How much did this idiot report cost, anyway?”

Is Obama Smooch Impaired?

Passes on supermodel, hesitant with co-ed

Sarkozy coerces Obama into accepting kiss from girl

Kissing confusion and protocol faux pas were in abundance during Obama’s latest embarrassment French sojourn.

The first clumsy moment, (yes, yes, this administration has consisted almost entirely of clumsy moments, but let’s focus on this one); the first clumsy moment came when Obama and… his wife… ah… I’ll think of it… Michelle—who appeared, yet again, to have dressed in the Salvation Army donation bin—were greeted in Strasbourg by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his main squeeze, Italian Supermodel Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

Outside the Rohan Palace, (not the Rohan Palace from The Lord of the Rings), Carla gave Mrs. Obama that european, double-mandible kissy-kissy, while the hubbies made-do with manly-men-type pats on the back.

Or they were both choking.

Swapping sides, (no obvious political pun intended), Sarkozy kissed both of Michelle’s upper cheeks, while Carla leaned toward Obama's jowl.

Obama balked.

Carla, her offer of a kiss spurned—likely for the first time in her life—pulled away and offered her hand.

While Sarkozy and Michelle were locked in embrace, Obama and Carla pumped paws.

“A handshake instead of a kiss?” Carla wondered to herself. “Could it be… my breath?”

Already having embarrassed himself and offended the First Lady of France, Obama was again reluctant as he and Sarkozy—ever the posing politicians—took to the streets and worked a crowd.

Cecilia Dervogne, a student whose name—unlike Strasbourg or Sarkozy—actually sounds French, called out to Obama.

"I said in slightly hesitating English… 'A kiss for me?' " Dervogne recalled. "He showed me his bodyguards,” (which is when you know you’ve got a guy’s attention), “who were surveying everything. I think there was a security gap we were supposed to keep to," she said, ending her sentence with a preposition.

After a somewhat longer clumsy moment than the first one of the day, Sarkozy peered at Obama and said, "What, you're not going to give her a kiss?"

"He offered his cheek timidly, and I gave him a kiss," Dervogne said, ending her sentence with a noun.

As Mlle. Dervogne noted, Obama does seem timid around girls: Perhaps he thinks they have cooties.

Racist Russian Ad Features Obama

Russian PRAVDA notes racism, sloughs it off

An ice cream-making company in Yekaterinburg, Russia, is promoting a flavor of its ice cream in a racist advertisement using Barack Obama’s image.

The slogan of the chocolate-in-vanilla ice cream titled as “Duet” says: “The Flavor of the Week! Black in White!” The image of a black man standing against the background of the US Capitol was considered a manifestation of racism.

The Russian Company Voskhod (Sunrise), which designed the campaign, said that the image was not meant to carry any racist meaning in it. A spokesperson for the company said that the picture simply marked the presence of the black president in the White House.

Andrei Gubaidullin, the author of the advertisement, said his campaign was not linked to racism, because Russia, unlike the West, had a different point of view about ethnicity.

“This is not racism for Russia. It’s just fun,” the creative director of the advertising agency said.

The Russian nationalist online news site Pravda (Правда)—which ironically translates as Truth—noted the racism of the ad, but didn’t think it serious nor did it comment on the obvious insults to the US government.

The Cold War Is Back!

Medvedev announces arms build-up, military revamping

Kremlin perceives threats from neighbors, NATO, US

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev caused chills to travel up spines in many nations yesterday when he announced plans to strengthen and revamp Russia’s military infrastructure and “most importantly” strategic nuclear forces.

In his 17 March speech to Russia’s Defense Ministry board Medvedev said:

Any analysis of the military and political situation in the world shows that in a number of regions serious potential for conflict remains. There is always the risk of local crises and international terrorism. Attempts to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on the borders of our country continue. All this requires a qualitative modernization of our Armed Forces to give them a new, forward-looking perspective. Despite the current financial difficulties, we can make all the necessary provisions.

The first challenge is improving the combat readiness of our troops, not just regular improvement but a quantum leap, most importantly in our strategic nuclear forces. They must be unequivocally ready to meet all the challenges necessary to ensure the military security of our nation. What is also on the agenda is the transfer of all combat units and formations to the status of permanent readiness. I want to stress that this is a key component of the new model or new image of the Armed Forces. [Emphasis mine]

The timing of Medvedev's announcement is likely a response to an ill-conceived overture from the White House:

Showing his characteristic lack of foreign-policy experience—and no understanding of the Russians whatsoever—Obama, in February, sent Medvedev a secret message, (since leaked to the press), offering to scrap US plans to place a ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would pressure Iran to cease development of its long-range missile and nuclear programs.

Even though the US defensive missile system is designed to shoot down missiles and not deliver nuclear or conventional warheads in an offensive role, the Kremlin has regarded it as a threat since the Bush administration announced plans for the system's deployment. As of this writing, the US still intends to deploy 10 Ground Based Interceptors (GBI) and a Patriot interceptor battery—manned by American crews—in Poland and a missile-tracking radar facility in the Czech Republic:

• A Ground Based Interceptor is a silo-launched missile which will track, intercept and destroy a ballistic missile before that missile and its warhead have re-entered the atmosphere. It has no warhead—using the kinetic energy of high-speed impact to destroy the enemy warhead.
• The Patriot system is a theater air defense missile battery capable of intercepting and destroying tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and combat aircraft. A Patriot missile has a range of 42 miles and a conventional warhead containing 198 pounds of explosive.

The Kremlin, through the thin veil of the Russian state news agency's Novosti, treated Obama's offer with disdain in a recent article.

News of Obama's secret offer to Moscow distressed Polish and Czech officials who, finally free of decades of Russo-Soviet terror and oppression are not anxious for it to return. The deployments will also add a not-inconsiderable boost to the economies of both nations.

But it isn't only the Czechs and Poles who are wringing their hands: Much of Europe is nervous about the reprise of Russian aggression: The First and Second wars with Chechnya, Russia's April 2008 cyber-attack on Estonia, its August 2008 invasion of Georgia and it's bullying squabble with Ukraine, (in which Russia turned off Ukraine's supply of heating gas during the dead of winter), seem, to many, a return to Russian pugnacity and expansionism. The Russians even claim possession of the North Pole, having used a submarine to plant a flag on the ocean floor there.

At a time of economic crisis in the US and Representative Barney Frank's (Loony-Mass.) pressure on Obama to cut spending in vital military programs, a time when the US needs Russia—to keep Iran on a short leash and to help keep US military supply lines open in Afghanistan—a Russian politician would see Obama's humble offering as nothing but a sign of weakness, and act accordingly.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962, the Soviets placed nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles in Cuba—ninety miles from the shores of the United States. After a tense, two-week battle-of-wills between US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, the Kremlin agreed to remove their weapons from Cuba. Khrushchev blinked first.

Undoubtedly, the Kremlin views this as almost the same scenario: The difference being that unlike the intended defense system for Eastern Europe, those Soviet Missiles could only be used offensively—each warhead killing potentially millions of Americans.

This time, however, Obama blinked first—and early in the game: Putin and his puppet Medvedev won't forget that. With his foolish show of weakness so early after assuming office, Obama has lost a very great deal of ground to the Kremlin which he may never regain. He’s no Jack Kennedy.

Who leaked Obama’s missive to the press? The first mention of it appears to have been in the Russian newspaper Kommersant. This strongly suggests that the story was intentionally leaked by the Kremlin as a way of showing that the Obama administration was weak on the idea of the defense of Europe—strengthening the Russian position on the matter. The “leak” will also tend to make things more difficult for the White House in dealings with Eastern European—and other—governments.

Obama would do well to remember that for decades, the Kremlin and, more recently, Dictator Prime Minister, (former KGB colonel), Putin have been known for playing—evil—games: indeed, they are masters, they are ruthless and they are playing those aggressive, expansionist games once more. Obama would also do well to remember who the game of Russian Roulette is named after. And why.

“I'd rather have the United States be the world's policeman than the Soviet Union be the world's jailer”

—Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

Obama Manages NOT To Offend Irish PM

Fountains at the White House ran green in celebration of St. Patrick’s Day as Obama welcomed the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen.

At a White House press conference, Mr. Cowen presented—as per tradition—Obama with a Waterford Crystal bowl filled with shamrocks. The two leaders gave speeches reaffirming the friendship and solidarity between their two countries. The only glitch occurred when, about twenty seconds into what he thought was his speech, Mr. Cowen realized he was repeating Obama’s speech, which had accidentally been recycled through the teleprompter due to a technical problem.

Perhaps Obama is starting to get the hang of this—we’ll see.

Obama To Open Secret Laboratories to Germany? Maybe not!

Obama To Open Secret Laboratories to Germany: That was the headline in Spiegel Online, the internet arm of Germany's Der Spiegel—one of Europe's largest weekly magazines with a circulation of more than one million per week.

On Monday, US Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano and Germany's Minister of Education and Research Annette Schavan, signed an agreement on the future scientific and technological cooperation between the two nations in the field of civil security.

Whether this cooperation goes so far as the United States opening it's secret labs to Germany, as Der Spiegel maintains, is questionable.

Maddeningly, outrageously and unacceptably, I was unable to locate a copy of this public document anywhere online—including US and German government sites. However, Heise.de claims to have obtained the full text of the document.

I have provided a synopsis of their analysis below:

The agreement was merely a "framework for the promotion, development and facilitation of bilateral scientific and technological cooperation activities in the context of civil security," and there is nothing specific in the agreement about the sharing of secret information.

The main points of the 31-page agreement are the:

• Defense and the detection of threats to civil security and response to these threats
• Forensic Science and placement in relation to security threats
• Protection of critical infrastructure and key resources
• Crisis response and consequence management and mitigation of serious events

Special attention is applied to the:

• Development of solutions to the security of people
• Development of solutions which increase the security of individuals without restricting their freedom

“Conversely, this means that solutions which do in fact limit civil liberties could also be developed, even if they are not the main focus of research efforts.”

Obama To Celebrate St. Pat’s With Irish PM

Brian Cowen Taoiseach of Ireland

Catholic Prime Minister brings genealogical gifts

When he arrives at the White House to celebrate St. Patrick's Day—now that that Brazilian guy's been sent packing—Irish Taoiseach, (tea-shock, equivalent to Prime Minister), Brian Cowen will present Obama with a copy of baptismal records which prove Obama's Offaly connections, (that's just too easy, folks—I'm not even going to touch it).

Prime Minister Cowen will give Obama a photograph of Templeharry Church in Moneygall, where Obama's great-great-great-grandfather, Fulmouth Kearney, (um... nope, still too easy), was baptized, along with parish records and a picture of the schoolhouse his ancestors attended.

Mr. Cowen will also extend an invitation to Obama to visit Ireland and Moneygall—which has nothing to do with Obama's economic policies.

Top of the agenda during Mr Cowen's visit will be the global economy, Cowen's proposed relaxing of work visa requirements for Irish entry to the US, and the rekindling of “The Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

White House aides are reportedly scrambling to find a menorah to honor Mr. Cowen's visit.

Obama Manages To Offend President Of Brazil As Well

Obama 0 for 2 as he offends two Heads of State in a row

Obama and his staff managed to offend Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, (known simply as Lula), before he even arrived.

Obama arranged a White House meeting during a telephone call to Lula, the two leaders agreeing to meet on 17 March—St. Patrick’s day. Obama also agreed to meet with Ireland’s Taoiseach, (tea-shock, equivalent to Prime Minister), Brian Cowen and formally celebrate—you guessed it—St. Patrick’s Day.

Isn’t there anyone in the White House familiar with the basic uses of a calendar? Hair-dressers don’t make such bumbling goofs, how on Earth does Obama manage to do so?

Lula’s trip was pushed forward from Tuesday because, remarkably, someone in the White House possessed of more than two working neurons, dimly realized that it made somewhat less sense to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with a Brazilian than an Irishman—and kudos to that rocket scientist.

Lula’s aides and the Brazilian press interpreted this as a snub, saying the offhand schedule shuffling made Latin America once again look like an afterthought.

Adding yet another insult to the mess, the White House announcement of the Obama-Lula meeting misspelled Lula’s name as "Luis Ignacio" and put "Lula"—a nickname that decades ago became a legal part of the Brazilian leader's name—in quotes.

How will Obama treat the Prime Minister of Ireland? Serve a traditional English breakfast? Pipe him into the White House with a rousing rendition of God Save the Queen? Re-gift Cowen with the Winston Churchill biography the UK prime Minister gave him?

The stumble for statesmanship continues.

Life, the Universe and Obama

Note: Having no desire to answer the same questions time and again in different comments in different articles, I am posting this primarily for the referral of future commenters. So please consider this a FAQ of sorts.

As far as Obama continually insulting the British, (not to mention other dignitaries), and my pointing out the facts as I understand them:

I am not any sort of an apologist for the British, (or, you will find, anybody-the-hell-else): My father was treated quite—I'll be civil—shabbily by Brits as an American stationed in England for a time during World War II and thereafter never had a kind word for them—far from it. I have nothing against the British as a people—many of whom are among the warmest, friendliest people I've ever met—I'm a rabid Dr. Who fan and I have respect for Her Majesty The Queen as an entity separate from her government. But for reasons of personal experience I have absolutely no love for the British government—again, far from it.

Putting my personal feelings aside—as Obama or any holder of political office in the United States is expected to—I recognize the blatantly obvious political, diplomatic, military, economic and scientific needs to maintain the alliance the US has had with the UK for generations.

As to my motives for anything I say about any politician:

I am neither a democrat or republican. In my observation and experience, all politicians are lying scoundrels, (or become so, soon after taking office), possessed of their own agendas which always benefit them and rarely the voters. Consequently, when I cast my ballot, I vote for the lesser of two evils; sometimes the lesser scoundrel is a democrat sometimes a republican, sometimes a libertarian and when the candidates tie as low-life miscreants I may write-in Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt or my cat. Those who peruse this site in its entirety will note that I point out McCain's idiocy as readily as Obama's. I am, as of the above date, preparing to lambast some other republican scoundrels—stay tuned.

Politicians are civil servants, no matter how much they like to perceive themselves as civil masters. They work for you. They work for me. Political malefactors of any persuasion need to have their chicanery and bad behavior pointed out.

Do I believe it's my job to do so? No. Do I feel I'm going to Save All Mankind? Don't be silly. I am simply exercising the natural and inalienable right that all people have: I'm putting in my two-cents. Take it or leave it.

Regarding Obama's disgraceful behavior towards the British, the question was asked:

"But how can we expect someone whose grandfather was tortured by the British under Churchill to feel the same way about him?"

It is entirely possible that Obama's grandfather was tortured by the British—I wouldn't doubt that such a horrible thing may have occurred. I find it curious, however, that there seems to be only one media report on this torture story which has been recounted—essentially verbatim—in many, many media outlets. Yet Obama himself has said nothing about such torture and his own account of his grandfather's treatment by the British in his book Dreams of my Father differs from that media account. They can't both be true. Where does the truth lie?

Regardless of the truth of that allegation, the President is expected to act on behalf of the American People—not on his own personal hatreds. Look at Nixon, who, as President, acted on little but his own personal hatreds. Want him back?

As to Churchill:

"Sir Winston Churchill has been named the greatest Briton of all time in a nationwide poll attracting more than a million votes."
(ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2509465.stm)

The British, under Queen Victoria, supported the Confederate States during the American Civil War. What do you suppose would be the American reaction—or Obama's—if a newly-elected British prime minister rudely and unceremoniously booted out a bust of Abraham Lincoln at 10 Downing Street? (Note: Please read this article in its entirety for my complete take on this issue.

Winston Churchill met with Charles de Gaulle and Joseph Stalin at the end of World War II—two men he passionately loathed. Under trying circumstances, he behaved as a gentleman toward them no matter how much he groused about them behind their backs. Obama could learn a great deal from Churchill. Don't hold your breath, though.

And then there's the slave thing:

"Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandfather worked as a slave"
"Obama's Ancestors Were Slave Owners"

Now, I'm Scots-Irish. You won't hear me going on about the bloody Viking invasions of Scotland and Ireland and the resultant murder and enslavement of my ancestors or how modern-day Scandinavians should be made to feel ashamed and to share in the guilt of those atrocities, because it would be just damn silly. Lunatic.

You won't hear me going on about how the Irish, (especially Irish Catholics), under British domination—slavery—in the 1800's starved to death in the hundreds of thousands, were deprived of most of what we consider basic human rights, were treated as little better than animals, were branded criminals for little or no offense and transported—men, women and children—to penal colonies in Australia and elsewhere.

Yet there are those—white and black—who refuse to put the slavery thing behind them and still gnash their teeth and beat their breasts about it, just as there are people today who hate all living Jews because a handful of Jews, who died 2,000 effing years ago, crucified Christ—never mind that Jesus himself was a Jew. Lunacy.

Yes, all these things are horrible to read about. Painful to contemplate. But they are things of the past: The actions, hatreds, travails and sufferings of people generations and centuries dead. It's history. I, for one, choose to live in the here and now.

White Guilt:

How many of you reading this own slaves? No one? Neither do I. Neither did my parents, nor theirs, nor theirs, nor theirs...

I did not cause slavery. I did not promote slavery. I did not end slavery. I was not involved at all.

I am not responsible—and I refuse to be held responsible by anyone in any way, shape or form—for anything, anywhere, which occurred before I was even born. If you choose to believe differently, you are mentally unbalanced.

Black Angst:

On this page: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/11/black_angst.html a self-professed black American left, in part, this plaintive comment:

"...try to imagine what it has been like for generations of blacks trying to move past the effects of over 200 years of slavery, followed by another 100 years of oppression thanks to our good buddy Jim Crow and others. 300 years. Three HUNDRED Years. 40 years is not enough time for all of those feelings to heal or to move past the results of centuries of institutionalized racism." [Emphasis, mine].

My response is this:

Crap.

What a lame, racist, excuse to blame others for the inner misery in which you have chosen to wallow.

Go to Japan sometime. You'll be treated—almost certainly—very well because it is in their culture to be polite. Whatever color you are—as long as you aren't Japanese—ask a man there for permission to date his daughter and all of a sudden you're a gai-jin pal, and boy-o-boy then you'll see the politeness vanish and the racism appear.

I've been to countries where there hasn't been slavery in a lot more than three hundred years and people of other colors or simply different nationalities are nonetheless treated differently—often insufferably and sometimes violently so. If you are fortunate, you will be tolerated.

I'm white and I've been treated differently by, (some), black neighbors, shopkeepers, politicians—even police officers—simply because of my skin color. I wasn't unkind to them, never said a bad word to them, but they reacted to me as though I had personally bought and sold their great-granddaddies. Sometime their behavior toward me was standoffish, sometimes harsh, sometimes threatening. Two of them burned my house down, so I don't live in that neighborhood anymore. Racists, pure and simple. Their racism is their problem, not mine: I've got better things to do.

Their words, actions and attitudes didn't change my behavior, my opinions or my self-esteem and certainly never have and never will have any part whatsoever in defining who I am or how I feel about myself. I define who I am; other people—living or dead—do not.

Read the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud—read history. This—slavery, racism—isn't an American thing and it isn't a recent thing; its been going on in thousands of places for thousands of years and—sad as it may be—things aren't going to be any different when you wake up tomorrow or the next day or the day after that.

So listen up, Bub. I don't give a levitating rodent's patootie if you're black, white, brown or yellow, or what kind personal hells you have decided to create for yourself. If you are going to whine about it, moan about it, despair about it and "oh, poor me" about it—all the while sitting on your hands and waiting for things to change—you are going to waste whatever life you have left. And it won't be my doing or Jefferson Davis' doing or Jim Crow's doing. It will be your doing.

Whatever you may think about Obama and however Obama may feel about this issue, you can credit him with one thing; putting it behind him long enough to make himself the first black President. Think about that.

As long as people, whatever their heritage, insist on perceiving the world in terms of color—racially, which is... now let's not always see the same hands... yes, Johnny, it's racism—their angst and guilt will continue unabated: There will always be a part of them that is miserable, there will always be a part of them which lives in fear, and they will have no one—living, dead or yet to be born—to blame but themselves.

It sure as hell ain't my fault.

Having said all that, lets again explore Obama's behavior toward the British:

Every President is expected—indeed, required—to behave as a statesman.

My grandfather was born in 1873—he was alive when Custer was. At one point, in Texas, the neighbors—best friends—of my grandfather and grandmother were—the only appropriate word is "slaughtered”—by Indians and my grandparents had to flee their home, barely escaping the same fate.

Now that was bad enough, but what if my grandfather or grandmother, (perish the thought, and may they rest in peace), had been captured and tortured by the Indians? And what if one of their descendants, (and there are a great many; my grandparents had 28 children. No, that's not a misprint), what if one of their descendants were elected President of the United States? How would the American people today expect—require—that President to behave toward the Crow or the Sioux or the Kiowa or the Comanche?

The President is expected to behave like a head of state and not a racist or Anglophobe or Russophobe and so-on ad infinitum.

(Before the amateur mind-readers out there start howling, I have many friends who represent several Native American Nations, (tribes, to the uninformed)—and Lou, if you're reading this, I mean you especially, dear.)

But lets cut to the chase and look at the very essence of the question regarding Presidential behavior:

Should the President of the United States—a public servant and the ultimate representative of the American people, whose decisions and actions affect certainly over 300,000,000 people and potentially billions—let his personal feelings color those decisions rather than basing them on the pros and cons of the facts alone? Should he not be held to the absolute highest standards?

Let's look at a comparatively recent event. Please keep in mind that the situation was far more complex than I am making it appear here, and therefore this may be considered by many a simplistic view—I won't argue that. Whether history ultimately reveals it to be true or not true, it nevertheless serves as an excellent example:

Many believe the deciding factor in President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 seems to have been that Saddam Hussein—in Bush's words—"tried to kill my dad."
(ref: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/)

The bottom line is this:

When a man is elevated to the office of President, he damn well should act like The President—the ultimate representative and symbol of the People of the United States—and not a neurotic, angst-ridden ninny, who constantly embarrasses himself, his office and the American People.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton:

"It's the Office, stupid."

 

Other comments, or salient portions thereof and my responses:

I include them because I feel they feel they belong in this kinda-sorta FAQ, for reasons I hope are obvious.

(Note: previously I was using "JS-Kit" to handle my comments, became disenchanted with it and removed it. In the process and despite JS-Kit's indications to the contrary, some comments were, alas, lost. I have no idea why some were lost and others remained. My apologies. I have yet to intentionally remove a comment no matter how oafish.)

Concerning the Thursday, February 5, 2009 Global Warming piece at: http://amccright.blogspot.com/2009/02/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor.html

Anonymous... said 1:
"...you're just a lying bastard..."

Thank your for your crude, infantile and insulting comment. I will deign to answer it, even though you hadn't the guts or civility to simply present an opposing point of view—which I would have been happy to read and to which I would have politely responded. Your churlish and vehement comment convinces me that the article shattered your pathetic, ill-informed, world view, and you're too much of a simpering cretin to face reality. The next time you wish to leave a comment, state it in a gentlemanly manner and you will receive a gentlemanly response in turn.

So. "...you're just a lying bastard..."

I'd like to think I'm not "just" anything.

As to the bastard part, my birth certificate indicates my parents were married at the time of my birth, so, no; I am apparently not a bastard. Not that such a silly thing matters.

As for being a liar: I am neither a lawyer, Hollywood actor, politician, talk-show host, union organizer, journalist, banker, broker, car salesman, lobbyist, real estate agent or evangelist. I am not a member of or associated with the United Nations, Handgun Control Inc., Current TV, The View, the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or the American Medical Association, nor do I have an agenda to promote.

Generally speaking, lying stems through fear. I am not afraid of you or—since my grandmother passed away in 1965—anybody else.

That being said, I do believe in civility: If someone thinks it important that I hear the intimate details of the surgery they underwent at the hands of their proctologist, I will feign interest. Though, after half-an-hour or so, I will suddenly remember an appointment.

Concerning the Thursday, March 12, 2009 article: Obama Just Loves To Insult Our British Allies at:
http://amccright.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-just-loves-to-insult-our-british.html

Anonymous said... 4
"There are more complex issues here than you are willing to admit."

Ye Gods, another amateur mind-reader! Just what the heck are you talking about, Bub? Enlighten us, please.

I submit that, perhaps things are simpler than you are able to grasp.

There is nothing complex about courtesy. There is nothing complex about decorum. There is nothing complex about maintaining the dignity of your office in the eyes of the world... Civility is simple—unless, of course, you are anonymously insulted by someone implying you are lying.