Monday, April 30, 2012

Thomas Sowell: Who Is 'Racist'?: Part II

Thomas Sowell: Who Is 'Racist'?: Part II

Who Was Haym Solomon?

Read this fascinating history of the $1 bill –
all the way to the bottom to know about Haym Solomon
.
You
may be in for quite a surprise!


On the rear of the One Dollar bill, you will see two circles. Together, they comprise the Great Seal of the United States.The First Continental Congress requested that Benjamin Franklin and a group of men come up with a Seal. It took them four years to accomplish this task and another two years to get it approved.

If you look at the left-hand circle, you will see a Pyramid
.



Notice the face is lighted, and the western side is dark. This country was just beginning. We had not begun to explore the west or decided what we could do for Western Civilization. The Pyramid is uncapped, again signifying that we were not even close to being finished. Inside the Capstone you have the all-seeing eye, an ancient symbol for divinity. It was Franklin 's belief that one man couldn't do it alone, but a group of men, with the help of God, could do anything.

'IN GOD WE TRUST' is on this currency.




The Latin above the pyramid, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means, 'God has favored our undertaking.'

The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, means, 'a new order has begun.'

 

At the base of the pyramid is the Roman numeral for 1776. (MDCCLXXVI)

If you look at the right-hand circle, and check it carefully, you will learn that it is on every National Cemetery in the United States .

 

It is also on the Parade of Flags Walkway at the Bushnell, Florida National Cemetery , and is the centerpiece of most heroes' monuments.

Slightly modified, it is the seal of the President of the United States , and it is always visible whenever he speaks, yet very few people know what the symbols mean.




The Bald Eagle was selected as a symbol for victory for two reasons:

First, he is not afraid of a storm; he is strong, and he is smart enough to soar above it.

Secondly, he wears no material crown. We had just broken from the King of England .

Also, notice the shield is unsupported. This country can now stand on its own.

At the top of that shield there is a white bar signifying congress, a unifying factor. We were coming together as one nation.

In the Eagle's beak you will read, ' E PLURIBUS UNUM' meaning, 'from many - one.'

Above the Eagle, we have the thirteen stars, representing the thirteen original colonies, and any clouds of misunderstanding rolling away. Again, we were coming together as one.


Notice what the Eagle holds in his talons. He holds an olive branch and arrows. This country wants peace, but we will never be afraid to fight to preserve peace. The Eagle always wants to face the olive branch, but in time of war, his gaze turns toward the arrows.


An (untrue) old-fashioned belief says
that the number 13 is an unlucky number. This is almost a worldwide belief. You will almost never see a room numbered 13, or any hotels or motels with a 13th floor. But think about this:

America, which relies on God (not a number) to direct and lead, boldly chose:


13 original colonies,
13 signers of the Declaration of Independence ,
13 stripes on our flag,
13 steps on the pyramid,

13 letters in 'Annuit Coeptis',

13 letters in ' E Pluribus Unum,'
13 stars above the eagle,
13 bars on that shield,
13 leaves on the olive branch,

13 fruits, and if you look closely,

13 arrows.



And finally, notice the arrangement of the
13 stars in the right-hand circle.
You will see that they are arranged as a

Star of David.



This was ordered by
George Washington who, when he asked Haym Solomon, a wealthy Philadelphia Jew, what he would like as a personal reward for his services to the Continental Army. Solomon said he wanted nothing for himself,but he would like something for his people.The Star of David was the result. Few people know it was Solomon who saved the Army through his financial contributions ...then died a pauper. Haym Solomon gave $25 million to save the Continental Army, money that was sorely needed to help realize America’s –our-freedom and independence from England .
 

Therein lies America ’s Judeo-Christian beginning.

 

Most American children do NOT know any of this.

They are not taught because their history teachers do NOT know this.

[They were not taught!]

 

On America ’s Freedom:

 

Too many veterans gave up too much to let the meaning fade.

Many veterans came home to an America that did not care.

Too many veterans never came home at all.

They  served,  they died  for  youfor  me.


 


It is God in whom we put our trust!

Friday, April 27, 2012

Montana Bear Tragedy:

This is a very sad story about a bear... Everybody should heed the warnings not to feed wildlife because they become dependent and don't forage for themselves any longer. It is such a tragedy to see what has been done to our country's wildlife. The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect U.S. wildlife. 
 
 
Animals that formerly were self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party. They have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.

This photo is of a black bear in Montana turned Democrat. He's nicknamed Bearack Obearma. It is believed that he has become a campground organizer.
 

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Illegal Aliens Fleeing America As Activists Prepare for Arizona Law Blitz

DO NOT STOP RACIAL PROFILING!

by Eliana Benador

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -after they’ve tried everything else.” Sir Winston Churchill

Has anyone read in the newspapers and news media the headline “Islamic Countries agree to stop Spreading Muslim Terrorism throughout the World-in the last days?
You don’t think so?  Well, you are right.  You have not.  You couldn’t have, simply because it was never published, and that’s because Islamic countries have never even intended to stop spreading of Muslim Terrorism. On the contrary.
» If you like this article, please subscribe to Right Side News Daily
However, after the massacres of September 11, 2001, it would have been expected that they (1) apologize profusely, (2) promise to stop the incendiary rhetoric used in the Koran promoting attacks on dhimmi countries with the goal of world domination under Islam, (3) stop the teachings of hate in the madrassas, and (4) most importantly, that they would immediately stop exporting Muslim terrorism to the Western world.
Time has gone by but no progress has been made.  On the contrary, we have learned to accept that regression as normal and acceptable.

Regression

How so?
Simply because on 9/11/12001 we were the victims of a terrible series of massacres against our people, therefore against our country.
And today, 25/4/2012, ten years and a half later, the table has been turned around.  
From victims, we became the invaders of such countries as Iraq -where we sent our men to “liberate” them.  We have become the despicable “aggressors” of a country as Afghanistan -where our men went to fight “their terrorism.”   It was in this country where was based the mastermind planner of the 9/11 massacres in America, in times of peace and against a civilian population.  The terror planner was Saudi Osama Bin Laden -whose death has not made him innocent of the irrepressible violence against Western civilization, and mostly, America, Europe and Israel.

Why has such regression been possible?

It has been possible because of the strong will within the Muslim world, based on the teachings of their prophet Mohammed in their religious book, the Koran that has inspired perseverance and decisiveness in their leaders -not the official leaders- but the ones that move the masses behind the scenes, the masters of Muslim terrorism who are able to dance under a choreography set up with the tacit accord of officialdom and under the wrapping of the “religion” of Islam, vessel of the most heinous violence and which destination is nothing less than complete world domination.
But, on the other hand, regression has also been enabled in Western civilization by the pervasiveness of liberals combined with the aloof indifference of the conservatives -from Israel to America, passing by France to Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and everywhere else where liberalism has given way to self-destruction and suicidal mentalities.

Islamophobia or Common Sense Apprehension?

Historically, it was one of the infamous Muslim Brotherhood arm in the United States, the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia that, years ago, gave birth to the term "Islamophobia,” which their creators saw as a way to counter criticism with the humanistic psychological coercion tools provided by American liberals.
Regarding the Koran, a Muslim must comply by all aspects mentioned in Sharia law.  And the practice of sharia must be 100%.  Naturally, there may be some Muslims who do not practice it to the fullest.  But, the Muslim world, unlike ours, is based in unity and when push comes to shove, and Muslims are called to “action” there won’t be many, if at all, who will not say present to the call of duty.

Muslim Family Values

Anyone who has lived in the Muslim world for a certain time, can attest that Muslim family values are a uniting element; they are closed knitted and, unlike the very divisive panorama that one can find in Western civilization, their  values at the source of unity within the society at large.
It is those values that will help understand the magnetic attraction of allegiance to Koran first and then to country.

What makes Muslims more prone to terrorism?

The Koran, with its teachings of world domination, demands to convert “conquered” populations, forcibly if need be, to Islam.  It also demands the establishment of sharia law as the law of the land.  Other aspects of the Koran include the inevitable terrorism, suicide bombings in the middle of innocent populations, and punishments such as beheading, stoning, mutilations, pedophilia, wife abuse, and much more.

Muslim children are taught to hate

Many have thought that only Palestinian children were indoctrinated with hate towards the Jews.  Surely, even little children are used as cobayes to the incendiary teachings of venom and hate:  Palestinian kids are "created to be fertilizer for land of Palestine, to saturate land with their blood"
In events, the children are trained to sing: “My pure land, I shall saturate you with my blood...  redeem you with my life...”  
Itamar Marcus, founder and director of the Palestinian Media Watch, is one of the foremost authorities on the Palestinian ideology and policy.  

In America, Muslim Children taught to Hate

According to trustworthy editor Dave Gaubatz, there is a looming threat:  Muslim children are being taught hate, in our America.  Mr. Gaubatz and his associates found that “young children from age 7, they are taught that assimilate in America is to disrespect and dishonor Islam.

Likewise, it is distressing to learn that “they are being taught our military personnel are the enemies of Islam and it is justifiable to kill anyone who dishonors or oppresses the Islamic ideology.”
The findings are abhorrent, sad, unbelievable, frightening, and most disturbing is the fact our government is keeping this dangerous fact from the American people. Muslim children attending mosques and Islamic schools are being taught to hate America, our government, our military personnel, and its non Muslim population. In this article I will identify three significant mosques in America that are leading the way in teaching Muslim children to hate and to influence them to commit violent acts inside our country.” Says the author, who writes this article for Family Matters.

Muslim “Arab Spring”

From different kinds and degrees of secular autocracies in the pre-2011 Muslim world, what’s left from the Arab Spring is chaos and mayhem.  Muslim revolutions have brought nothing but destruction, human rights abuse (just as with the civilian populations and in the case of Gaddafi.)  
The Muslim world in the Middle East is in total disarray; the forces of evil have been awakened, empowered and left at their own devises.   And theirs is a sight of pain, violence, abuse, and much worse.  Nothing to be proud of.    
Is that the way to move away from barbarism and get closer to civilization?

Keith Ellison demands Holder to stop Racial Profiling

The U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to the American Congress and the first American of African origin, from Minnesota, to have been elected to the House.   
As such, Mr. Ellison has been putting pressure on Mr. Holder, the pro-Muslim Attorney General and friend of Barack Hussein Obama, to stop racial and religious profiling.    
Emotions and a vested agenda are guiding these two men in their quest to continue cleaning the front door of Muslims in America.

Sneaky Congress held Hearing to question Racial Profiling

How many of our readers have been aware that this has happened on the 18th of April?
Obama and his administration, just as the U.S. Representatives and Senators, connived to make this happen, as usual, in the most discreet manner.

Culture of Victimization

From being the leader at the forefront and the vanguard of development in science, technology, business, industry, etc., America has now given place to the culture of victimization -which will end up deteriorating not only the American spirit but the real essence that was to be found in past times, in that inspiring figure, the American Cowboy.
For a second, close your eyes and imagine what would the famous American Cowboy have done in these dire times, seeing his beloved country about to fall into the hands of the living evil, Muslim executioners...?

Do NOT End Racial, Religious Profiling!

A Muslim human rights attorney, Engy Abdelkader, writes on Huffington on behalf of ending racial profiling.
It’s interesting how Abdelkader builds her case: "The assumption underlying religious profiling is that your identity as a Muslim or Islamic devotion translates into a likelihood to commit a terrorist act. Yet, existing research belies this notion: terrorists who claim to be inspired by religion are not likely to be found at mosques nor do they exhibit signs of devout religiosity.
A study by the British intelligence agency MI5 found that, "[f]ar from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practice their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices."
However, the attorney forgets that we are speaking here of uneducated masses, those who are impressionable and who could follow a dog wherever the dog would tell them to go.  Thus, her arguments are fragile.  Not all terrorists have the same origin as Osama Bin Laden.  On the contrary.
What is massive, however, is how they all expect us to be so distracted and gullible that they may be hoping we would not think or learn about the Muslim children indoctrination abusing our country’s hospitality to teach their children to hate us and our military institutions.   
Something that for sure would ingratiate Muslims with us would be an outright resolution from all Muslim countries to stop exporting terrorism and give up on their intentions of world domination.   That would help.

Pressure Congress NOT to Stop Racial Profiling AND to Stop Hate Teaching

This is America, one of the cribs of civilization.  When our hospitality is abused to teach hate to little children, it is sacrilegious.  
And, we must make it our business, out of respect to our own American Children, because if we do not stop this extremely abusive behavior, our American children will be exposed to that kind of influence.  
Americans must understand that in the face of this threat to the education and standard of life of our children, we must: (1) Demand from Congress and AG Holder, with immediate effect, that the Racial Profiling continue, and  (2)  Given that Hate Teaching is unacceptable within our American Educational System, every measure must be taken to stop this abhorrent situation.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Live like George Zimmerman

Exclusive: Joseph Farah says shooter behaved as men should in a self-governing society


Obama's Undiplomacy

Most of the criticism of the Obama administration’s foreign policy concerns the failure of “reset diplomacy,” the inability to deal with Iran or North Korea, or the sense that we are ignoring allies and appeasing enemies.
All true. But under the radar, there are several developments that are far more disturbing than we seem to realize.
Take the RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone that went down in Iran in December 2011. The U.S. chose neither to attempt to retrieve it nor to bomb the wreckage. Why? Who knows? But it seems that, as in the case of the administration’s silence when Iranians hit the streets in protest during the spring of 2009, Obama was worried about provoking an Iranian response. Although Iran brags that it will reverse-engineer the drone, it is not likely to actually do so. However, it will very probably sell off key components to the Chinese and the Russians, who will duplicate it or at least find far more effective ways to neutralize its use.
Most recently, during a Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, Barack Obama weighed in on the Falklands in a fashion that was both offensive and ignorant: “And in terms of the Maldives or the Falklands, whatever your preferred term, our position on this is that we are going to remain neutral. We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue. But this is not something that we typically intervene in.”
Almost everything in that statement was false or dangerous. Aside from the 57-state-type error of Maldives for Malvinas, the U.S. does not look forward to “dialogue” on the issue, but rather avoids it like the plague. And in the past, we were not neutral but eventually intervened with massive clandestine support for Great Britain, a NATO ally. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had previously used the term Malvinas, which is a sort of Argentine equivalent of “the Zionist entity” — a bankrupt construct loaded with cultural and political significance. Obama should know that the more he uses that term (or trills some sort of M-word for an archipelago somewhere on the map), the more likely it is that there will be an Argentine effort to replicate the 1982 attack, especially as the Peronist Kirchner regime seeks foreign scapegoats (cf. the recent nationalization of the Spanish oil firm Repsol’s stake in an Argentine company), and the British loudly reduce their military forces. Fears of massive American logistical and intelligence support for Great Britain alone keep the Argentinians guessing, and by extension not trying something as stupid as replaying the 1982 invasion.
The problem is not just that Obama has no knowledge of geography, but that he has none either about history or diplomacy. The Falklands, a windswept, lightly populated group of islands with a history of sparse European settlement, never fit the so-called colonialist model of oppression of indigenous peoples. The isolated and barren islands were always disputed by European powers, and are as much British as Guam is American. More importantly, Britain has fought side by side with the U.S. — after a past century of solidarity — in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet Obama insidiously is eroding that relationship by a gratuitous and uninformed effort at politically correct multiculturalism.
Then there is the talk of unilaterally downsizing our strategic arsenal, perhaps even to 1950s levels of 300 to 500 deployable nuclear weapons. In utopia that sounds noble, but with North Korea now nuclear, and Iran about to be, the number of rogue states that do not play by the rules of the nuclear club is growing, not shrinking. If we were to downsize our arsenal so radically, America would be on par with lesser powers like China, India, and Pakistan, which do not have global deterrent responsibilities. Obama seems indifferent to the fact that sophisticated Free World countries that could make nuclear weapons as they do Hondas or BMWs — Japan, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and most of Western Europe — depend on the vast size of the U.S. nuclear umbrella for their own strategic security.
In theory, 1,500 to 2,000 instantly deployable nuclear weapons might seem overkill; in fact, their numbers assure our allies that we have ample power to allot a strategic deterrent to each of their needs, even at times of simultaneous regional crises. Draw down to a level of 300 to 500 nuclear weapons, and the comparative profile of a Pakistan or an Iran will rise, our allies will eventually ponder going nuclear, and the global influence of the U.S. will wane. Such disarmament pipedreams are no longer the stuff of college essays, but a life-and-death matter affecting billions of people around the globe.
The administration has also quite publicly announced a shift in U.S. strategic attention to the Pacific, apparently on the premise of a rising China and a quiescent Europe and Mediterranean. Aside from the fact that Europe’s southern coast lies at the intersection of three continents, and is critical for operations in North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, now is not the time for our first “Pacific” president to announce a drawdown in our European forces.
Historical pressures, well apart from Putinism in Russia, are coming to the fore on the continent — pressures that were long suppressed by the aberrations of World War II, the Cold War, the division of Germany, and the rise of the EU. The so-called “German problem” — the tendency of Germany quite naturally at some point to translate its innate dynamic economic prowess into political, cultural, and above all military superiority — did not vanish simply because a postmodern EU announced that it had transcended human nature and its membership would no longer be susceptible to ancient Thucydidean nationalist passions like honor, fear, or self-interest.
If you have doubts on that, just review current German and southern-European newspapers, where commentary sounds more likely to belong in 1938 than in 2012. The catastrophe of the EU has not been avoided by ad hoc bandaging — it is still on the near horizon. Now is the time to reassure Germany that a strong American-led NATO eliminates any need for German rearmament, and that historical oddities (why is France nuclear, while a far stronger Germany is not?) are not odd at all. In short, as the EU unravels, and anti-Germany hysteria waxes among its debtors, while ancient German resentments build, it would be insane to abdicate the postwar transatlantic leadership we have provided for nearly 70 years.
There is a pattern here in all these recent missteps, one of hesitancy, moral confusion, and naïveté. To the extent that Obama knows history, it is a boilerplate one of European and American culpability. To the extent that he is interested in human nature, he holds a therapeutic belief that rhetoric and good intentions, not preparedness, resolve, and deterrence, impress rivals. To the extent that he understands geopolitics, it is of the juvenile multicultural sort, in which hostile nuclear powers, traditional enemies, and troublesome neutrals are either not much worse than or morally equivalent to long-standing allies and friends.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Enemies of the People

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0412/hanson041212.php3

WHITE VS BLACK CRIME

Justice Department Statistics About Black On White Race Violence
’The Race War Of Black Against White’ by Paul Sheehan The Sydney Morning Herald , Australia, 20 May 1995
The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year’s congressional election.
Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let’s start suggesting, immediately.
No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America.
And the problem is getting worse, not better. In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:
• According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.
• Most victims of race crime—about 90 per cent—are white, according to the survey ”Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims”, published in 1993.
• Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.
• Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.
• According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960’s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.
Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.
When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).
When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.
All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double-standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard.
AMEN…Cal

Nugent: Allen West

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/12/romneys-running-mate/

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

An editorial by Burton Jones. 

 
 
http://mychal-massie.com/premium
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies.  He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family.  He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.  He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.  He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman.  He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.  He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support.  He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.  His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world).  I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
 
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.  He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed.  Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled.  Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood … Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders.  He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)
 
 

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Obama off the Cuff


Conservatives caricature 24/7 Barack Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter. True, his speeches are scripted; but we forget why so: He is very good at reading a prepared script as if he were talking off the top of his head, and he is very bad at actually talking off the top of his head. In the former mode, he sounds pleasantly moderate and mellifluous; in the latter, sort of creepy and awkward.
Yet the result is paradoxical: Obama seems to feel false when he sounds balanced and eloquent reading someone else’s ideas on a teleprompter, and genuine only when he is extreme and ad hoc in his own words. Because teleprompted eloquence is by definition somewhat artificial, Obama believes that his real wit and insight are appreciated only in extemporaneous exposition.
Yet here lies another paradox: His lack of judgment is not evident on the teleprompter, but is only fully illustrated when he is off it and his more extreme ideas are candidly expressed.
All presidents reveal glimpses of themselves through gaffes and off-the-cuff candor. Richard Nixon’s various paranoias were most evident on the secret White House audiotapes. Reagan’s anti-Soviet feelings were behind his open-mike joke  “We begin bombing in five minutes.” When George W. Bush blurted out “Dead or alive” or “Bring ’em on,” the impromptu bombast seemed to reflect his cowboy image.
Such revelations are all the more striking in Obama’s case since rarely has a president’s ideology been so at variance with his public persona. His real views have been gleaned mostly from unguarded moments when he talks confidently without prompts — and therefore sounds conniving and shallow.
We learn about Obama’s views toward Israel not from campaign speeches, in which he soars with platitudes to raise money from the Jewish community, but when he is caught on an open mike with French president Sarkozy rudely ridiculing Israeli prime minister Netanyahu, or in a leak about snubbing the Israeli leader at the White House, or in a statement by the Palestinian foreign minister to the effect that administration officials had advised the Palestinian leadership to “sit tight” during the present election year — until Obama no longer need face the electorate and thus its displeasure for forcing concessions upon the Israelis.
For all the talk about the need for federal courts to audit errant state immigration legislation or to strike down the Defense of Marriage law, Obama does not believe in either an inactive or an active judiciary, only in one that parrots his own ideology. When jurists do this, they become sober and judicious; when they might not, then we hear an impromptu screed that Supreme Court justices are “an unelected group of people” who should not “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” — “an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Are we worried about Obama’s naïveté in dealing with the Russians on arms control, short-changing the Poles and Czechs on missile defense, and not quickly dropping the failed reset diplomacy? We should be, but we know that only because we have ignored his scripted rhetoric about Russia and listened instead to his embarrassing gaffe when he was caught on another open mike assuring President Medvedev that after the election our president would be more flexible with Putin, in a fashion that most Americans would find disturbing. In that exchange, the president seemed to regard all Americans as veritable Pennsylvania clingers, backward emotional folk who do not understand the diplomatic nuances of their more gifted technocrats.
Impromptu bows to a Saudi sheik or a Japanese monarch are also not written in the margins of the script, but they likewise give insights into the sort of multilateral, we-are-all-equal worldview that Obama envisions for America. Almost any time the president is abroad and goes impromptu, he must send shivers up the spines of his handlers: How he will react to the anti-American rant of a Daniel Ortega, or what new critique of his presidential predecessors will he come up with in Turkey?
Take also the question of race. Officially, in scripted speeches, we still hear the healing tropes of 2008. Unofficially and in clumsy fashion, we are told that America is a society in which police officers stereotype and act stupidly. Presidential wisdom about the Trayvon Martin tragedy is limited to a tribal reflection that the son Barack Obama never had would have resembled the deceased — an odd observation whose exact intent is still not clear. In 2008, “typical white person” and the clingers speech were also ad hoc and not teleprompted, but these repulsive remarks proved to be more accurate harbingers than any soaring script explaining away the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
How about healing and unity — as in the no-more-red-America-or-blue-America sermons of the past? For the answer to that we turn to the imprompu “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” “Get in their faces,” “tea-baggers,” and “punish our enemies.” Or consider Obama’s private call to Sandra Fluke and his later quip that he did not wish his daughters to grow up in a world in which a Rush Limbaugh defames women — without much cognizance that his own campaign affiliates had gladly accepted $1 million from the misogynist Bill Maher, or that he now de facto owned the comments of his celebrity supporter, who had said far worse things about women than had Limbaugh — but without commensurate presidential rebuke.
Obama felt impulsively that he must editorialize that the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords teaches us about the need for civility in public discourse — without much worry that soon those words could come back to haunt him. They surely did when labor leader Jimmy Hoffa Jr., in Obama’s presence, appeared to threaten violence, with the promise, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”
The inadvertent Obama gives glimpses of his them-vs.-us world, in which doctors lop off limbs and rip out tonsils for cash, fat cats junket to Vegas on their kids’ tuition money, the uncaring don’t know when to stop their profiteering and they worry little about spreading the wealth. In the world of the flippant Obama, energy prices should “skyrocket”; Brazil should sell us the sort of offshore oil we ourselves will not develop; and proper tire pressure, tune-ups, and algae can substitute for more drilling. In these moments of candor, there are no speechwriters, and no canned phrases moving down a screen, spiced with the Nixonian “Make no mistake about it” and “Let me be perfectly clear” fillers. The thoughts, phraseology — and incoherence — are all Obama’s own.
If it comes down to a choice between an eloquent delivery of someone else’s neatly crafted liberal ideas and Obama’s ad-hoc revelations of his own hard-left worldview, it is no wonder why most of us prefer the teleprompter.

The Outing of Deep Throat

As the 40th anniversary of Watergate impends, we are to be bathed again in the great myth and morality play about the finest hour in all of American journalism.

The myth? That two heroic young reporters at The Washington Post, guided by a secret source, a man of conscience they dubbed "Deep Throat," cracked the case and broke the scandal wide open, where the FBI, U.S. prosecutors and more experienced journalists floundered and failed.

Through their tireless investigative reporting, they compelled the agencies of government to treat Watergate as the unprecedented constitutional crisis it was. No Pulitzer Prize was ever more deserved than the one awarded the Post in 1973.

These young journalists saved our republic!

However, the myth, fabricated in "All the President's Men" and affirmed by the 1976 film of the same name, with Robert Redford as Bob Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Carl Bernstein, has a Hellfire missile coming its way.

"Leak: Why Mark Felt Became Deep Throat" is an exhaustive study of the reporting of Woodward and Bernstein and the leaking by the FBI's Mark Felt, whose identify as Deep Throat was revealed in 2005.

"Leak" author Max Holland zeroes in on the last great unanswered question of Watergate: Why did Felt, an FBI No. 2 on the short list to succeed J. Edgar Hoover, risk reputation and career to leak secrets to the Post?

Woodward and Bernstein paint Deep Throat, writes Holland, as a "selfless high-ranking official intent on exposing the lawlessness of the Nixon White House." But this is self-serving nonsense.

The truth was right in front of Woodward. His refusal to see it made him a willing or witless collaborator in the ruin of the reputation and career of an honorable pubic servant, Patrick Gray.

Felt was consumed by anger and ambition. When Hoover died, a month before the break-in, Felt, who had toadied to Hoover, saw himself as Hoover's successor. But President Nixon went outside the bureau to name Gray from the Department of Justice acting director.

Concealing his rage and resentment, Felt wormed himself into Gray's confidence, and then set out to destroy Gray.

Felt's method: Leak discoveries of the Watergate investigation to a cub reporter at the Post, which everybody in Washington read, rather than to veteran journalists known to be FBI outlets.

This would cover Felt's tracks.

Published in the Post, the leaks of what the FBI was uncovering would enrage Nixon and make Gray appear an incompetent unable to conduct a professional investigation. This would make it unlikely that Nixon would ever send Gray's name to the Senate for confirmation as permanent director.

And if Gray, an outsider, fell because he couldn't keep the FBI from leaking, Nixon might turn to Felt, the ranking insider who could button up the bureau like Hoover did.

By ingratiating himself with Gray as he set out to discredit and destroy him, Felt expected that when Gray was passed over by Nixon, he would recommend to Nixon that he appoint his loyal deputy, Felt, as director.

Even if cynical and vicious, the scheme was clever.

Until Nixon found out Felt was the leaker in late 1972, he was considering Felt for the top job. Felt's machinations and deceptions at the apex of the FBI make Nixon's White House appear in retrospect to have been a cloistered convent of Carmelite nuns.

More revolting than the ruin of Gray's reputation was what Felt did to the good name of the bureau he professed to love. By leaking what agents were learning about Watergate, he was discrediting the FBI.

Inside the government, he made the FBI look like an agency of bumblers who could not keep secrets. Outside the government, the FBI looked like a three-toed sloth, while a fleet-footed and fearless Washington Post was unearthing the truth.

The FBI appeared beaten at every turn by the brilliant Post, when it was the FBI's homework Felt was stealing and the Post was cribbing.

Woodward and Bernstein were glorified stenographers.

And though Deep Throat was portrayed as a man sickened by the wiretaps and break-ins by the White House, Felt himself, writes Holland, "authorized illegal surreptitious entries into the homes of people associated with the Weather Underground."

In 1979, Felt was prosecuted and convicted and then pardoned by Reagan.

In "The Secret Man," Woodward calls Felt "a truth-teller." That's quite a tribute to an FBI man who lied to Pat Gray, lied to all of his FBI colleagues and lied to every journalist who asked him for 30 years whether he was Deep Throat.

If Felt was a hero, why did he not come forward to tell the country what he had done and why?

Because he was no hero.

Mark Felt was a snake. He used the Post to destroy his rivals and advance his ambitions, and the Post didn't care what his motives were because Felt was assisting them in destroying their old enemy.

Yes, indeed, the finest hour in American journalism.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

A Brutal Week For The President

By Charles Hurt
The Washington Times
Thursday, March 29, 2012


ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a  sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.
Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place — let alone be re-elected later this year.
Consider:
• Last Friday, Mr. Obama wandered into the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aided by his ignorance of the situation, knee-jerk prejudices and tendency toward racial profiling, Mr. Obama played a heavy hand in elevating a tragic situation in which a teenager was killed into a full-blown hot race fight.
Americans, he admonished, need to do some “soul-searching.” And then, utterly inexplicably, he veered off into this bizarre tangent about how he and the poor dead kid look so much alike they could be father and son. It was election-year race-pandering gone horribly wrong.
• By the start of this week, Mr. Obama had fled town and was racing to the other side of the planet just as the Supreme Court was taking up the potentially-embarrassing matter of Obamacare. While in South Korea he was caught on a hidden mic negotiating with the president of our longest-standing rival on how to sell America and her allies down the river once he gets past the next election.
• Meanwhile, back at home, the Supreme Court took up the single most important  achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency and, boy, was it embarrassing. The great  constitutional law professor, it turns out, may not quite be the wizard he told us he was.
By most accounts, Mr. Obama and his stuttering lawyers were all but laughed out of the courthouse. They were even stumbling over softball questions lobbed by Mr. Obama’s own hand-picked justices.
• Mr. Obama closed his week pulling off a nearly unimaginable feat: He managed to totally and completely unify the nastily-fighting Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Late Wednesday night, they unanimously voted — 414 to zip — to reject the budget Mr. Obama had presented, leaving him not even a thin lily’s blade to hide behind.
So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.
It was as if you lumped Hurricane Katrina and the Abu Ghraib abuses into one week for George W. Bush. And added on top of that the time he oddly groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and got caught cursing on a hot mic.
Even then, it wouldn’t be as bad as Mr. Obama’s week. You would probably also have to toss in the time Mr. Bush’s father threw up into the lap of Japan’s prime minister. Only then might we be approaching how bad a week it was for Mr. Obama.
Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.
Eugene A. Simon   
Email: esimon@mei.net
HOME:   (269) 721-8336
CELLPHONE:  (269) 967-5113
In God We Trust
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.