1. BUSH 43’S LEGACY (1/16/09)

2. CITIZEN OBAMA? (1/18/09)

3. 2009 (1/17/09)

4. ITINERENT & PERIPATETIC PRESIDENT

5. IRAN WINS IN IRAQ (9/11/09)

6. PRESIDENTIAL LIES (10/11/09)

7. NOBEL APPEASE PRIZE (10/23/09)

President Bush, like former President Clinton a few years ago, has been pushing for a respectable legacy for history.

He wants to be remembered as the president who liberated millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, although those people may have a different version of ‘’liberation’’ than Bush does.  As this is being written, headlines informs us ‘’Iraq Bomb Kills 48 in Volatile North.’’  Maybe Bush meant liberation in progress.

Clinton, of course, had a legacy before he tried to define one.  He is the first sitting president to have standing sex with a woman but claimed he never had sex with her even though she had sex with him.  Shum legachie!  Some claim! The sworn liar from Hope has a laundry list of other derogatory offenses that go far beyond mere peccadilloes and glaringly outweigh any pluses on his historical score card.    

If Vincent Bugliosi of Charles Manson prosecution fame can get his way George W. Bush’s legacy will be that of a ‘’murderer’’ subject to prosecution for that alleged crime for the rest of his natural life.  His crime is taking the nation to war in Iraq on a ‘’lie’’ about weapons of mass destruction (wmd’s) that led to thousands of casualties, including (more than) 4,000 American deaths, Bugliosi charges.

In his new book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder Bugliosi coined some pretty nasty epithets and adjectives for Bush, including:

A man ‘’of bumper sticker mentality; not a man of stature; draft dodger; terrible hypocrite; punk, who hid out during the Vietnam War; arrogant, self-centered person; a very bad human being; despicable man; morally small and characterless man; arrogant son of privilege; grotesque anomaly, an aberration, monstrous individual; self-centered person; negligent; lazy; irresponsible; wimp from Crawford; fool, and SOB (he spelled it out).’’

Maybe in his next book Bugliosi will get rid of his sickly inhibitions and tell us what he really thinks of ‘’W.’’

HIS ALLEGATIONS

Bugliosi indicts Bush and his aides for going into Iraq under false pretenses and for ignoring the threat from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda for eight months before 9/11 in which 3,000 Americans lost their lives.  He lambastes U.S. faulty intelligence for which, he claims, Bush was responsible, but ignores Bill Clinton’s negligence in this area where others claim the blame really lies.

He also contends that Bush ignored warnings from the FBI and the Clinton administration about the threat of Al Qaeda.  He charges Bush altered intelligence reports about Iraq’s WMD’S to mislead the American people, and that the president said Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S., which, he claims, it wasn’t.

Another charge is that Bush was so obsessed with wanting to invade Iraq that he depleted resources from Afghanistan and turned over the chance to apprehend Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan forces that had been paid to protect him and later helped him to escape.

Bugliosi maintains there was stability among the various factions (Kurds, Shiites and Sunni’s and Turkman) in Iraq before the U.S. invasion even though the people had to obey the rules and edicts of Saddam Hussein, the dictator.

He is cocksure about Saddam Hussein not having any WMD’s but at least one expert on the Middle East doesn’t agree.  Bugliosi makes no mention about the possibility Saddam’s WMD’s might have been stored underground or shipped to Syria.

ANOTHER VIEW

Yossef Bodansky, scholar and former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, asserts Iraq did have WMD’s and the entire arsenal was shipped to Syria, according to Russian intelligence.

In his book Iraq War Bodansky claims other WMD’s were hidden in underground tunnels via technology provided to Syria and Iraq by North Korea.  He asserts the arsenal was hidden ‘’both before and immediately after the War.’’

Bodansky cites two instances where the United States had an opportunity to expose Hussein’s possession of WMD’s to justify its support for invasion.

One was in January, 2003 when the British raided a terrorist safe house in Manchester, England, and recovered ricin.  That provided proof of cooperation between Iraqi military intelligence and al-Qaeda, Bodansky contends.  This showed the availability of operational weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as well as the fact that Iraq was training al-Qaeda terrorists in the use of chemical weapons, he adds.

But for political reasons, President Bush preferred to support Tony Blair’s pressure to keep Israel at arms length and not to implicate Yasser Arafat, who was involved.  Bodansky points out that the American public was never told about ‘’one of the strongest and most explicit justifications for the war in Iraq.’’

The other incident occurred during a parade in Baghdad about a year before the war started when Hussein displayed his arsenal.  ‘’There is no doubt the missing weapons systems existed…’’ wrote Bodansky.  He blames the American intelligence agencies for incompetence in not discovering the weapons before they were hidden.  They were on display for our intelligence to record, but unfortunately we had no intelligence.

Gen. Tommy Franks also relates in his book American Soldier that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah and other Mideast leaders said Hussein possessed WMD’s a couple of months before America attacked Iraq.

The question of Iraq’s WMD’s may be answered for posterity in the future.  But for now just about every one agrees, including former President Bush, that our intelligence was faulty in claiming Iraq had them.  But if our intelligence was so bad why do they rely on it to conclude wmd’s never existed?  Just because they were not found doesn’t end the controversy.  Has Syria, Libya and all other Middle Eastern nations been thoroughly searched to record this as historical fact?

Even if Iraq had had WMD’s, however, would that have constituted a ‘’direct threat’’ to the United States that necessitated war?  That’s a whole new argument.

THE BLITZ

Bush and his team have launched a propaganda blitz in an effort to depict his legacy the way he wants it to look for history.  Their main effort is to paint a favorable façade on his taking the nation to war in Iraq.  It’s a hard sell that involves some tampering with the facts.

When will this Bush team realize it couldn’t sell ladies of the night on an aircraft carrier much less democracy to the Arabs and revisionist history to Americans?  But they never stop.

Defending his actions in a West Point speech, Bush asserted that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were part of a concerted strategy to keep pressure on terrorist groups and rogue states after 9/11.  Iraq was a rogue state but it did not have terrorists at the time.  The war brought them in.

As for Saddam Hussein, Bush said ‘‘America could not afford to allow a regime with such a threatening and violent record to remain in the heart of the Middle East.’’  How about Iran?  It is just as big a threat to the Middle East as Hussein ever was and nothing is being done about it.

In fact Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused the Persians of ‘’trying to devour the Arab states,’’ according to the Jerusalem Post online.  He charged the Islamic Republic is trying to subsume its Muslim neighbors. 

All the Bush operatives are now blaming faulty intelligence and not Bush for the Iraqi invasion.  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is ‘’pained’’ that the U.S. went to war over inaccurate intelligence, according to the Voice of America.  And she would ‘’give anything’’ to know if Iraq had WMD’s before the invasion. 

David Kilcullen, former Australian Army officer and former adviser to Rice called the decision to invade Iraq ‘’f-- ---- stupid,’’ according to Washington Independent.  Rice believes the Iraqi operation will turn out to be a strategic achievement.  She said Hussein was a ‘’murderous dictator’’ who caused millions of deaths and sought WMD’s.

The Bush legacy team also includes Karen Hughes, the president’s former communications or spin director.  Although Bush would not do so, Karl Rove stated firmly that the president would not have gone to war in Iraq had the intelligence been different.  In an interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson Bush said the alleged flawed intelligence on Iraq was the ‘’biggest regret’’ of his presidency.

His critics contend, however that he was intent on toppling Hussein and deliberately manipulated intelligence to mislead Congress and the people to do so.  The possibility of a vendetta remains because of his declaration that Hussein ‘’tried to kill my dad.’’

The concerted effort by the Bush operatives to try and keep him from being recorded as one, if not the, worst president in history highlights what they consider some positive accomplishments.  They include: 

Liberation (there they go again) of millions of Iraqis and Afghans; efforts to help relieve HIV-AIDS and malaria, especially in Africa; adding prescription drugs to Medicare and his No Child Left Behind education policy, and keeping the nation from another terrorist attack on his watch.

But as Bugliosi points there was about an eight year interval from the time Al-Qaeda first bombed the World Trade Center in 1993  and the 9/11 attack, and seven years were on Bill Clinton’s watch.  So Bush’s main legacy claim is somewhat tainted.    

THE TELLING  DOWNSIDE.

Excluding Iraq here are some other telling entries on Bush’s record that his propaganda team has conveniently failed to mention.  Maybe we will see appositive spin on these in the future.  They include:

Policies that led the nation to bankruptcy, record trade and budget deficits and the dismantling of private enterprise;  the run around Congress to try and establish a North American Union of Canada, dysfunctional Mexico and the United States; not enforcing immigration laws and outsourcing the nation’s infrastructure; encroachment on constitutionally guaranteed individual rights via the Patriot Act and the use of innovative, clandestine surveillance methods; expansion of executive authority; secrecy in government and the usurping of congressional authority by signing executive orders like the one protecting presidential papers from historians; revival of the thrice defeated Law of the Sea Treaty that would give the United Nations control of 70 percent of the world’s resources under the ocean; downgrading U.S. sovereignty on just about every front; thumbing his nose at Congress in signing statements that tell them what parts of laws he will and will not enforce, and scandalously mishandling of the hurricane Katrina catastrophe, and leaving two wars and a broken economy for his successor.

OTHERS HAVE MISLED

As bad as Bush’s mistake in misleading the American people and faulty judgment was in invading Iraq, whatever it was based on, he is not the only president who misled or blundered into war and disastrous foreign policy, although his may be the worst.

Bugliosi should have brushed up on his history before giving too much credit to the likes of indispensable Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), Harry S. Truman (HST), and George W. Bush 41 in trying to prove his point that no other president wanted to go to war.

He claims that would-be dictator Roosevelt, the egotistical invalid that ran four times for president, didn’t want to go to war with Japan.  But Roosevelt deliberately goaded Japan into war and put the fleet in harm’s way to take the first blow and live up to his campaign promise of not going to war unless attacked first.  It cost the lives of more than two thousand U.S. seaman.  Note that there were no air craft carriers in Pearl Harbor, only obsolete battle ships.

One very well researched and definitive book on this subject was written by Robert Stinnett.  It is titled Day of Deceit, the Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor.   Stinnett writes that Gen. George Marshall met with seven reporters who were sworn to secrecy and predicted ‘’that a Japan-American war would break out during the ‘first ten days of December.’’’  He also related that the Japanese code had been broken.  These major news organizations kept the information from the public and Adm. Husband E. Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, who were in command in Hawaii at the time, were never told about it.

Stinnett reports FDR was concerned whether the Pearl Harbor attack sufficiently angered and united the American people for War.  He met with Edward R. Murrow the night of Pearl Harbor and did not seem surprised about it.  His wife cooked a sausage dinner for guests that night as White House activities went on as normal, Stinnett reported.

Bugliosi also praises FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson for launching a federal ‘’nonpartisan’’ investigation of the tragedies while George Bush ‘’tried to sabotage an investigation of 9/11.’’

One must, however, be cautious of these reports that purport to solve disastrous issues but seldom do.  The administrations in power often stacks these investigative panels with cronies and people agreeable to their actions and come up with white washes of the events.

That’s what happened when FDR tried to head off a congressional inquiry into events leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack.  He appointed a five-man board of inquiry headed by Supreme Court justice Owen J. Roberts, who was recommended by then Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter who owed his job to FDR.

The Roberts commission barely scratched the surface of deeds involving the machinations of the Roosevelt administration leading up to the Japanese attack  Its conclusion, as related by Stinnett, was: ‘’…the attack was successful due to failures and errors of judgment by Admiral Kimmel and General short.’’  They were the fall guys.

It is common knowledge that LBJ twisted arms to staff the Warren Commission and the jury is still out on that commission’s conclusions which prompted one forensic scientist to say it belonged on the fiction shelves of libraries.  Incidentally, there was no forensic scientist on the panel of prestigious names meant to give it authenticity.

The public should be cautious about these special commission reports such as the Baker-Hamilton Commission and those mentioned as well as the one by the 9/11 Commission report that profess to give the final answer to catastrophic events.  They usually don’t. Bugliosi relies heavily the 9/11 report as well as newspaper accounts of events although he blasts the press generally.

H.S.T. AND REDS

In claiming Bush wanted war but no other president did, Bugliosi correctly states ‘’…there’s no evidence that Harry Truman was looking forward to and wanted war in Korea.’’  But he fails to mention that Truman’s policies led to war in Korea and Vietnam.  Even the Cold War might have been different and milder writes historian Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania in What If?, a book of essays by military historians.

Waldron wrote that George Marshall in trying to broker peace between Chaing Kai-shek and the communists in China probably led to Chaing’s defeat.  Communists in the State Department convinced Truman, Marshall and Dean Acheson to withhold support and funds from Chaing and Marshall persuaded or strong-armed Chaing not to attack a key Chinese city that probably would have won the war had he won the city.

Chaing had defeated the communists in Southern Manchuria and was about to attack Harbin, a key to the battle with the communists, when Marshall convinced him to halt.  Chaing said it was the worst mistake he ever made in fighting the reds.

As for Bush 41 he fouled up both going in and out of the Gulf.  It is well known that his ambassador led Hussein to believe we would not respond if Hussein invaded Kuwait.  After all we supported Hussein in his fight with Iran.  Bush failed to follow through and subdue Hussein which left him free to wheel and deal and provoke another invasion after trying to kill Bush 41.

WHO’S THE WINNER

Despite the hard sell by Bush and his minions the winner in Iraq appears to be Iran.  There is no stability in Iraq and the government is headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite.  He has just suppressed a movement to reconstitute Hussein’ Baath Party by arresting 35 officials in the Iraqi Ministry of the interior.  They were later freed.  Conspiracies and new alliances are reported to abound there.

A new federal report also states that the $100 billion rebuilding effort in Iraq has been a failure.

Bush who prematurely dramatized a ‘’mission accomplished’’ win in Iraq is now touting no new al-Qaeda attacks under his administration as one of his accomplishments and claiming ‘’it’s not a matter of luck.’’  But with our borders down, our infrastructure for sale he cannot lay claim to border security so luck must be involved.  And if he laid the ground for an attack later the fact that it didn’t happen on his watch doesn’t account for much.

Defending the Iraq invasion Bush said the U.S. could not tolerate a Hussein-led Iraq—‘’a dangerous force in the heart of the Middle East.’’  How about Iran?  We tolerate it and it is a much more dangerous force with open nuclear activity and threatening Israel?

Bush went after the wrong enemy.  Hussein was a buffer against Iran in the Middle East.  Yes, he deserves a high place in the historical pantheon of world butchers, but he was still of use to the United States.  Bush removed Iran’s worst enemy at a cost of the 4,200 lives and more than $1 trillion.  A Shiite government is in control and friendly to Iran as it awaits its chance to infiltrate and then enter Iraq in force.  Liberation! What Liberation?

And that alone shouldn’t qualify Bush 43 for any brownie points from historians.

Top

‘’Who are We?’’ asked the title of a book by the late Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington that assessed the changes and challenges to our nation’s cultural mix that have become even more pronounced since the book was written five years ago.

It seems we are a nation without a cultural identity that elected as president a Chicago Mulatto with a dubious background (he even called himself a mutt) who would not even present an authentic birth certificate.  And neither the disgracefully biased mainline press nor any government entity or court thus far has held his feet to the fire about it.  In fact, this important matter has been largely ignored by authorities and the press.

The Supreme Court even met with Obama while it had a case challenging him as not being a natural born citizen before it.  Does that indicate that the court is ignoring the challenge and that its decision was reached before the hearing?  Does Chief Justice Roberts have a duty to check his authenticity before swearing him in?

There is nothing wrong with a Mulatto running for president, of course.  But there is a lot wrong with one who thumbs his nose at providing the required credentials to do so.  And it does show how much the nation has changed from its original underpinnings.

Constitution!  What Constitution?

But what can we expect when Senate and House members pass an unconstitutional $700 billion or so bailout package for high rollers and the former president joins the farce by signing the illegal bill?  Why was it unconstitutional?  For openers, it contained new taxes, and the Constitution states that taxes are supposed to originate in the House.  Conservatives claim it is unconstitutional because it violates principles that limit the amount of power that can be delegated to the executive branch.  Doesn’t that also apply to the Federal Reserve Board itself?

For those who may not be aware of it, bankers in this country are a privileged class. The latest proof of this is the multi-billion dollar rescue of Citigroup and Bank America with a promise of more help for bankers on the way.

Congress delegated its power again to Wall Street as it did in 1913 when it created the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System.  We got a latter day FDR in Wall Streeter Hank Paulson at Treasury wheeling and dealing with taxpayer money in a helter-skelter way picking winners and loser in a failed economy.  FDR came up with a new idea every day but never solved the Great Depression.  World War II did that.  Paulson with delegated authority acted much like FDR.  But money that was supposed to go to home owners went to, you guess it, bankers.

Obama has nominated Timothy Geithner of the New York Federal Reserve Bank to replace Paulson.  So, we get another wheeler and dealer from the banking industry to tell us how to spend our money--that is if he is confirmed by the Senate.  Seems he forgot to pay his taxes.  He will head the Internal Revenue Service if he is confirmed, and not paying taxes is a ‘’no-no,’’ which he will have to enforce.  Will the people have any confidence in him?

BIRTH CERTIFICATE

As for birth certificates, even kids in grade and high school must present birth certificates to participate in sports and other activities.  As a coach of my son’s grade school basketball team I once challenged a big kid’s age and found out via his birth certificate that he was over age just as his size suggested.

Yet, a candidate for the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, can run for the most powerful office in the world without producing the required authentic document.  Does the electorate today even care about a candidate’s background or character, or constitutional specifications?  The answer appears to be, no.

We could elect an illegal alien to the office if no authorities ascertained that he as a candidate met the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution.

CONSTITUTION MEANS LITTLE

But the Constitution seems to mean little to anyone in the electoral process now, and its stated qualifications for president are treated lightly if not ignored altogether.  

A federal judge has ruled that a mere citizen has no standing to sue if he has reason to believe that a candidate for president is an illegal alien and therefore not qualified to be president.

The judge’s ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court where it was rejected.

The 538 members of the Electoral College who have a sworn responsibility to uphold the provisions of the Constitution in voting for a president ignored that responsibility and voted to elect Obama sans the required credential.

At the least they should have demanded that the elected president be qualified for the job under the terms of the Constitution.   In this case a single, authentic birth certificate is all that was being requested. And if Barack Hussein Obama would not provide that simple proof of citizenship then the electors had a constitutional duty not to vote for him, regardless of prior promises or party affiliation.  It’s was their constitutional duty.

Article 2, Section 1. of the Constitution states:  ‘’No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;’’  The secretaries of the various states should also have seen that this requirement was met before permitting their electors to cast their votes for president.

Another suit before the high Court by a retired New Jersey lawyer, Leo C. Donofrio, claimed that the birth certificate and other issues were irrelevant because Obama could never qualify as a ‘’natural born citizen.’’  Why?  Because, Donofrio claimed, he was born a citizen of the United Kingdom because his father was a citizen of Kenya, a UK colony at the time.  He claimed it doesn’t matter where he was born if he was a UK citizen he could never meet the natural born clause.

How can the electors, the Democrat Party, or even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who swears in the president, be sure that this provision is met if the person involved has not presented authentic credentials?

This issue is not likely to go away after Obama becomes president.  And if the allegations against Obama are later proved and necessitate Obama’s impeachment, what happens then? Is the election nullified?  Would Joe Biden become president?   Would another election be required?  Such a scenario could lead to undesirable consequences possibly including misguided race riots.  But which would be worse for the country? 

Should Obama’s candidacy prove to be illegitimate, the truth will surface at some point, and the results could be worse later than sooner.  If his election be declared void so would all of his presidential actions.  So, the matter should be settled now.

There were several legal challenges filed in either state or federal courts demanding certification of Obama’s citizenship status.  Most all have been denied.

In California a petition was filed on behalf of Alan Keyes, the former presidential candidate and others. It requested that the secretary of state there to refuse to permit the state’s electors to vote in the election until Obama verified his eligibility.  It, too, was rejected.

But the petition cited two other cases where candidates for office in California have been removed, one because of presenting false data which his birth certificate proved. 

It taxes credulity to believe Obama didn’t have something to hide by failing to present this simply document.

But those who asked him to do so and who resorted to law suits because of his obstinacy in refusing to respond, were treated with angry retorts.  

THE CONTROVERSY

The controversy, of course, revolved around where exactly Obama was born.

Critics claim Sarah Obama, Barack’s paternal grandmother, states in a video tape that she was present at Obama’s birth in Kenya.  They say his half brother and half sister also claim he was born in Kenya.  Kenyan officials have gagged Obama’s kinfolk from talking about it.

Bishop Ron McRae of the Anabaptists Churches of North America,  said in an affidavit that he was present when the grandmother made the statement, according to the Citizenwells Blog site.

Attorney Philip Berg claimed that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he lost his American citizenship when his mother remarried and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband when he was about 10 years old.  When Obama lost his U.S. citizenship under these circumstances, Berg claimed, Obama would then be required to apply for U.S. citizenship when he returned to the United States but that he never did.  His suit also was rejected.

But as noted Donofrio claimed all this is irrelevant because Obama was a British citizen and cannot qualify as a natural born citizen.  These cases are now academic since the courts have rejected them.

Writer Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya to look into this matter before the election but was roughed up while there and the books were closed to him.  According to WorldNetDaily with whom Corsi is associated, ‘’Corsi obtained documentation linking Obama to the nation’s prime minister, Raila Odinga…’’ for whom Obama campaigned.

According to WND, marauding Muslim mobs that supported Odinga, caused more than a thousand deaths and damaged about 800 Christian churches.  The Muslims contended that Odinga would change the constitution and declare Islamic law as the ruling authority in some regions.

Although, the Constitution abounds with spelled out ways to resolve this issue but it doesn’t matter because no one seems to care.  And we may have wound up with a bogus president.

OBAMA’S GAUL

It is ironic that Obama, despite his failure to present his certified birth certificate, has provided a strict and even invasive application for the background of those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts in his administration.

It’s somewhat akin to the first executive order that Bill Clinton signed after becoming the 42nd President of the United States.  Executive order 12834 titled ‘’Ethics commitments by Executive Branch Employees’’ involved, among other things, giving truthful testimony under oath.

So all of the Obama functionaries should be aware that the party line is comparable to the old preacher joke that admonishes, ‘’don’t do as I do, do as I say do.’’

Incidentally, the Senate confirmation hearings for Obama’s picks are a laugh.  The Republicans are restricted in time to investigate the nominees such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and the Democrats are stamping approval after soft-ball questioning.  Congress is much more expert at perks and pay raises.

Top

• Barack Obama’s natural born citizen controversy and eligibility for the presidency will be ignored by the courts as it has by the electors and secretaries of the 50 states.  But the controversy will not go away and will continue to crop up until it is resolved with the production of an authentic birth certificate.  It is just one of the skeletons in Obama’s closet that will haunt him during his tenure in the oval office. 

• The ‘’Puff the Magic Negro’’ parody of ‘’Puff the Magic Dragon’’ for Obama is all wrong.  In the first place Obama is not a Negro no more than he is a Caucasian.  He is a Mulatto.  A more accurate spoof if there has to be one would be, in my opinion, a parody of Victor young’s song, Latin from Manhattan  about a 10th Avenue hoofer posing as a popular Latin dancer.  The Obama parody could go something like this:  ‘’He’s a Mulatto from Chicago, He’s an unbelievable conniver,’’ etc.

• Is Obama a Muslim?  He claims he is a Christian, but he doesn’t tell us much about his childhood connection with Muslims in Indonesia or whether he ever was a Muslim as a child.   One ‘’think tank’’ founder claims Obama ‘’lied’’ about it.  We know as much about this as we do about his birth, and he won’t elucidate to the satisfaction of some critics.  We do know he has strong ties to Muslims and is strongly supported by them.  He plans an outreach to Muslims with a major address in an Islamic capital.  Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi claims Obama is a Muslim who studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia; and an Islam expert contends Obama is an automatic Muslim since his father was one even if he didn’t actively practice the religion.  Muslims bent on establishing Sharia law will almost assuredly find a friendlier environment to do so under Obama.

• Obama has reiterated his intention to work directly with Iran with a new approach that he said emphasizes ‘’respect’’ and a new willingness on being willing to talk.  Now here is a country whose president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s destruction; has defied all international efforts to halt its nuclear program; has thumbed its nose at accepted diplomatic exchanges by invading the U.S. embassy and imprisoned its members; has supplied arms to Iraqi militants that have killed U.S. soldiers and funded Islamic militants around the world, and Obama wants to approach it with ‘’respect.’’  When did it ever earn any?  He has just issued another call for Israel’s demise.  News dispatches also say he is ready to talk to Hamas.

• Pundits are estimating a $750 billion to $1 trillion or more price tag on Obama’s new economic stimulus package.  That on top of the $700 carte blanche check already endorsed by Congress takes us to about $1.5 trillion.  Does anyone understand there is no money in the till?  It doesn’t matter though as long as Uncle Ben (Bernanke) at the Fed sees that the government printing presses are in good order.  The government tells Ben how much it needs, Ben makes a paper transaction for whatever it is and orders the printing presses at full speed to turn out more fiat money.  Taxpayers get the tab plus interest.  And please don’t be rude enough to ask for an accounting of how your money is spent.

• Don’t pay any attention to those phony cooked government statistics coming out of Washington.  It appears that if you multiply official budget estimates by 3 you will be closer than what the government states, although you still may be under the mark.  Congressional budget analysts estimate a $1.2 trillion budget deficit next year, and Obama has warned of trillion dollar deficits for years to come.  But, according to John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics (SGS) the deficit has been above a trillion for a few years.  As an example SGS estimates the 2007 budget was in deficit by $4 trillion.  Williams charges that misreporting of government data has contributed to the current fiscal crisis.

• The unelected careerists at the State Department who have been running appease and please leftist policies in defiance of presidential policy can now come out of the closet.  They have new leaders in Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama (BHO).  Appease and please appears to be their forte.  Obama even wants a dialogue with Hamas.  BHO also wants to bring younger careerists in.  Indoctrinate them and when they are old they will not stray probably.  If not the Obama-Clinton doctrine will be in play for years. 

• What Hillary didn’t take or took and had to give back when she left the White House she may be able to pick up at the State Department, which also has some fine china and stuff.  She won’t miss a trick.  Wonder if she’ll take Bubba along on official trips to far away places?  The tabloids will be keeping a close eye.

• Now that Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has resigned as nominee for Commerce Secretary over a smelly state contract we wonder what Hillary Clinton will do about another skeleton that has fallen from her overcrowded closet?  The allegation is that a New York developer donated $100,000 to Bubba’s library about the same time Hillary helped him get millions of dollars in federal assistance.  Hillary wouldn’t do that, would she?  Don’t expect her to withdraw after winning Senate confirmation.    

• Watch for efforts to be made to curb talk radio and the internet.  If newspapers take bail-out money, there will be even more restrictions.  Several countries already are trying to control the internet and there are reports that police in some are looking to hack citizens’ home PCs to get information without a warrant.

• Another assault on free speech and Obama supports some form of it.  A congresswoman from Texas has reintroduced a bill against so-called hate crimes which the Bush administration rejected as probably unconstitutional.  Critics say the bill is not about hate or crime but the outlawing of peaceful speech.  If the bill becomes law not even preachers could assert that ‘’homosexual behavior is morally wrong.’’ said Chuck Colson, former White House functionary, according to  a story by Jim Meyers on Newsmax.com.

• The odds are great that Obama will get a chance to nominate at least one and maybe two or more Supreme Court justices during his term.  Jurists who do not believe in a ‘’living Constitution’’ need not apply.  We pretty much knew what the original Constitution meant.  The ‘’living one’’ will be what activist justices deem it to be.  But then that’s what the social engineers were also trying to do with the original Constitution.  They just didn’t have total control.

• One way to deter illegal immigrants is to remove enticements that lure them here in the first place including jobs, free education and hospitalization and other government benefits such as social security, and automatic citizenship to those born here.  I hope I’m wrong but I can’t see Obama doing a better job than Bush did about illegal immigration. And that was practically nothing.

• If Obama turns out to be as good a president as he was a senator then the recent election was much costly time-consuming ado about nothing.  The nation and people will suffer as usual.

• The election process in this country is broken almost beyond the point of no repair.  People of all political persuasions need to come together in the interest of preserving the democratic process by eliminating the raising of money as the primary weapon for getting elected.  But as long as politicians make the laws and set election procedures don’t expect much if any change.

• Poppy Bush is touting another of his son’s for president.  He wants Jeb to run for first magistrate.  Haven’t we had enough Bushes, Clintons and Kennedys?  If Poppy can think of a good reason why his No. 1 son, George, shouldn’t be dubbed the worst president in history, maybe the people could buy into his suggestion.  But another Bush to rule over us is depressing if not frightening.  And that goes for the Clintons and Kennedys, too. 

• Is there some earthly reason why Carolyn Kennedy should be senator from New York?  I’ve always had trouble with trying to figure out why Uncle Ted should be a senator from Massachusetts.  When he ran for senate the first time his opponent said if his name wasn’t Kennedy his candidacy would be a joke.  Doesn’t that also apply to Carolyn’s bid?  Now that she’s out we all can be thankful. 

• New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg on a politicking trip to Israel to express his support for the Gaza invasion might have unwittingly invited another terrorist attack on New York.  The militants already have called for attacks on Jewish interests everywhere and that includes the Big Apple.  So maybe Bloomberg’s trip won’t tip the scales one way or the other, but he should not be inciting Middle East fanatics, especially for political gain.

• If militant Muslins wanting Allah’s rewards for lethal attacks have erased capital punishment as a deterrent for their deeds, what will deter them?  Our experts should be thinking hard about this.  It’s like the rabbit and the briar patch fable.  We may have it all wrong by not thinking like they do.  One thing we all know is that nobody likes torture.  Hope our soldiers don’t have to read them their rights before they capture them.

• If Republicans would get aggressive with hard questions to Obama’s nominations of former Clinton Administration politicos to his new regime some fur could fly during confirmation hearings.  At least it would be a good show.  But Republicans even when they had a majority let Clinton off after the House impeached him.  I doubt they will get too aggressive as Democrats lob soft questions and laudatory introductions to the nominees.  The American public deserves better than politics as usual.

• Obama and his nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, are foes of gun owners.  It is to be hoped that they will study closely crime statistics in jurisdictions where guns have been outlawed as they were in Australia a year ago.  One internet blog reports homicides, assaults, armed robberies, break-ins and assaults on the elderly are all up considerably in Australia during the past year.  Gun owners were forced to turn in their guns. They did, but the criminals didn’t.  Under a dormant bill sponsored by 68 congressmen, which is expected to be revived, Holder would have the right to ban certain weapons with no one else’s approval.

• At last a study is being made of the 2,300 mosques in the United States to determine how closely they adhere to Islamic law (Shariah) and how much of a threat they are to national security.  The study, according to a story by Art Moore for WorldNetDaily, is being made by Dave Gaubatz.  He’s a Middle East expert and former Air Force special agent.  Americans look at the mosque as simply a worship place like a church or synagogue, but it is much more than that. Mark A. Grabriel, former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, stated in his book Islam and Terrorism ‘’Throughout Islamic history…all movements of jihad came out of the mosque.’’

• Dr. Gabriel also points out there are three stages of jihad.  The first is where Muslims are a weak minority in a non-Islamic society where they worked to gain strength.  Next is the preparation stage where they are reasonably influential and make plans for the final Jihad stage.  It calls for overturning the host government and establishing Islamic authority.  This stage is close to having been reached in some European countries and in some areas of the United States such as Michigan and Minnesota.

• Henry Kissinger, who parlayed his foreign policy service into a lucrative business that promoted China and other foreign government interests, is pushing hard for ‘’A New World Order (NWO).’’  He says Barack Obama has a perfect opportunity for creation of a new NWO, which Kissinger has long advocated.  A secret adviser to Bush 43, Kissinger is responsible for several deals that have enhanced the military capability of Communist China and undermined American security.  He keeps his operations so secret that he declined the chairmanship of the 9-11 Commission rather than reveal them.  If this money grubbing charlatan ever had any credibility for promoting the interests of the United States it should be evident that they no longer exist.  He is openly supporting the downgrading of U.S. sovereignty.  His associates operate in high places in the government and use it as a swinging door to Kissinger Associates.  Kissinger himself still has access to U.S. intelligence which helps him advance his business.  Haven’t we had more than enough of this Bavarian opportunist?

• Arab-Americans and others marched in several cities after Israel launched its attack against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  Not surprisingly everything was quite while Hamas were lobbing rockets into Israel.   All plans by all administrations so far have been costly, time-consuming and fruitless.  Any plan by Obama can be expected to suffer the same fate.  Only good will on both sides will settle the dispute and it doesn’t look like that will happen given the adamant position of the Arabs.  Why do Europe, Russia, China and other nations always come down hard on Israel but never seem to do the same against the militant Arabs?

• The main concern about homosexual equality in the military should be its combat capability and fitness for battle of the troops and nothing else.  By their very nature homosexuals suffer from an abnormality even though their clout forced the American Psychiatric Association to remove them from the list of mental disorders. Abnormal is not normal no matter who disagrees. Barack Obama, who never served in the military, wants to do away with the ‘’don’t ask don’t tell’’ provision now in existence.  Why?  To make the military more proficient? Hardly.  Obama also supports same sex civil unions and abortion.  He clearly appears to be a homophile and has bought into the homo agenda. But what about the downside of gays in the military?  Does it give superiors more clout over inferiors and lead to homosexual seduction?  What happens to morale and discipline when relations are broken off?  Obviously, the military needs restraints to promote good order and discipline that do not have to be compatible with civilian society.  Accommodating homos at the expense of military readiness is fatuous on its face.

• President Bush and his sycophants need to curtail their propaganda blitz of revising history to present Bush’s legacy in a positive light for historians.  Bush would do better to let historians see the records than to try and keep them secret.  The truth will out and all of his efforts to suppress and revise it or to lament about it will change nothing.  He would do well to remember this stanza from Edward Fitzgerald’s Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

                          The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
                          Moves on: nor all you piety nor wit
                              Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
                          Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

Top

If, as scholars and experts attest, Muslims that adhere to the letter of the Quran have a goal of spreading Islam worldwide, then their aim has been made easier by President Obama.

The president who during the presidential campaign cried foul to those referring to his middle name, Hussein, and his ties to Islam flaunted them during a speech to the Muslim community in Cairo, Egypt, after becoming ensconced as president.

Even the crackdown on opposition leaders in Iran and the rigged elections have not deterred Obama from still wanting to negotiate with the country’s top leaders.  Wonder what it is about Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stated and reiterated position on nuclear arms and insults to the United States that Obama doesn’t understand?

At this writing Obama is in Russia agreeing to the reduction of our nuclear arsenal and being badgered on our missile defense deployment in Europe.  Don’t expect us to come out the winner in these talks.  Remember the nation came to the brink of nuclear war when Nikita Khrushchev judged John Kennedy to be weak after they met.  The nation should get nervous when our presidents go abroad.  It usually leads to defeat and in the case of Obama who overestimates his oratorical and negotiating skills we have even more cause for concern.

Obama likes to see the world but bashing the United States and appeasing our enemies in the process is not advancing U.S. interests.

At present we still are trying to digest what was lost from Obama’s earlier trip to the Middle East and his fawning for better relations from Muslims, some of whom would like to see us destroyed.

Under Obama Muslims will find it easier to give to their charities (possibly even to slip cash to militants such as Hamas); build more mosques from which hatred often emanates; hide behind Muslim garb like hijabs; send more students here in exchange programs, and encounter a much friendlier atmosphere in which to try and establish Sharia law as the Quran directs.

All of this is in the name of religious freedom that the Muslims do not practice in their own countries.

Obama has had close Muslim ties from childhood.  His father and paternal forebears were Muslims, and he extended the welcome mat to them in his Cairo address.  The answer as to whether this is good or bad will have to wait, but if Muslims who have migrated to Europe and other locales are an example then it appears not to bode well.

One thing that is pretty well known, however, is despite the coddling of Muslims by politicians such as Obama and his predecessor, George Bush, Islam is not a peaceful religion – if it is a religion at all as it once was.  Some scholars contend it has changed to a political movement.

If that be the case then Obama is treading on thin ice and may be posing a threat to our Constitutional government and man-made law which ‘’true’’ Muslims are said to detest.

Another thing that should be understood well about the Muslim jihad movement is that it involves three stages, according to Dr. Mark A. Gabriel, former professor of Islamic history at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, who has written several books on Islam and terrorism.  Al-Azhar where he taught is the most prestigious Islamic university in the world.  The stages of jihad are:

The ‘’weakened’’ one ‘when Muslims are a minority living in a foreign country.  In this condition they submit but work to increase their numbers.  The ‘’preparation stage’’ where they are an influential minority like in areas of Michigan and Minnesota, as examples, and make preparations for later direct confrontation.  The last stage is jihad where, according to Dr. Gabriel, ‘’every Muslim is to actively fight the enemy, overturning the system of the non-Muslim country and establishing Islamic authority.’’

Obama’s foreign policy seems to be built around bashing America first to gain dialogue with the enemy even though the historical record shows that appeasement never has worked.

When he went to the Summit of the Americas he sat by for almost an hour while Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega denounced U.S. policies in Cuba and South America.  He also shook hands with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who had handed him a book that insulted the United States.

He never defended the United States as he could have for containing Castro and the spread of communism in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Greneda and other hemisphere locations by supplying billions of dollars in aid and support to the region.  Chavez is inviting Communist Russia and China to the region with open arms.

In his speech to placate and appease Muslims in Cairo Obama again berated America and Israel in the Middle East while ignoring the long record of broken promises by Palestinians in dealings with Israel.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SPEECH

Educational Exchanges – Obama said he would expand educational exchange programs and increase scholarships ‘’like the one that brought my father to America.’’  Whether that was good or bad is arguable.  We do know, however, that his father was a drunk, a womanizer and wife beater who was killed while driving intoxicated.  Obama also failed to mention that it was an educational study program that brought Sayyid Qutb to the United States.  Qutb was ‘’the founding father of modern jihad ‘’and the spiritual leader of today’s Islamic terrorist groups.’’  Obama eschewed the use of the term terrorists throughout his speech.

Mosques – Obama cited more than 1200 mosques in the United States as an example of freedom of religion in this county.  He did not mention, however, that this freedom is not reciprocated by Islamic nations.  Dr. Gabriel writes: ‘’Islamic nations…will never permit Christianity to be practiced in their countries.’’  He also notes that the mosque is not a place of worship like a church or synagogue.  ‘’Throughout Islamic history…all movements of jihad have come from the mosque,’’ he writes.  A preliminary study by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy (CSP) has concluded in an undercover survey that three of four Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, according to WorldNetDaily, a conservative internet news site.  Despite these radical mosques, Obama seems to be extolling their growth as a good thing rather than launching a government investigation of them in the interest of national security.  After all his first obligation is to protect the American people and defend the constitution, which he swore to do but isn’t.

Holy Koran – In his speech Obama referred to the ‘’Holy Koran’’ four times and appeared to equate it with the ‘’Holy Bible’’ as divinely inspired.  But scholars who planned and wrote The Great Books of the Western World wrote that ‘’only one Book (the Bible) is set apart as sacred ‘’ (Vol. 11 p.589).  Whether the Quran is ‘’Holy,”” meaning sacred or divinely inspired or not, Muslims believe it is, and there is nothing wrong with that so long as they tolerate other religions which, of course, they do not, especially in their own countries such as Saudi Arabia.  Dr. Gabriel claims that when Muhammad conquered Mecca and moved there from Medina,‘’The move changed Islam from a spiritual religion to a political revolution.’’  He adds that 60 percent of the verses in the Quran talk about jihad, which ‘’…became the basic power and driving force of Islam.’’

Thomas Jefferson – Why Obama cited the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Quran and what, if any, significance that has is a mystery.  He noted that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress from Minnesota, ‘’took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.’’  Jefferson delved into many subjects including several religions for information more than any other reason.  But he was a deist and embraced no religious sect.  In fact he was one of only three presidents in history who had no religious affiliation.  The other two were Abe Lincoln and his second vice president Andrew Johnson.  As for the Quran, Obama omitted that it states the ultimate goal of Islam is to establish its authority over the entire world.  He also could have mentioned that Ellison has ties to the Muslim American Society (MAS), an Islamic organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group.  MAS is reported to have funded a pilgrimage to Mecca by Ellison last year.

Zakat – Obama talked about religious freedom and the ‘’proud tradition of tolerance that Islam has.’’  But he didn’t mention anything about the intolerance of Christianity that exists to this day and especially in Saudi Arabia.  He bowed to Saudi King Adullah on his first visit with him.  He didn’t mention that the Quran instructs Muslims they must not be friends with Christians and Jews.  (See surah 5:51 as quoted by Dr. Gabriel.)  Obama uses other quotes and terms from the Quran to try and bolster his case.  Take ‘’zakat’’, or charitable giving, as an example.  He said present U.S. rules make it harder for Muslims to fulfill their obligations in this regard.  Surprise! An ACLU study reached the same conclusion.  But these rules were meant to make it harder for such money to get to militant Muslims like Hamas, which the U.S. has labeled a terrorist organization but which Jimmy Carter wants removed.  In fact a U. S. district judge has sentenced the co-founder of Holy Land Foundation and four others to long prison terms on charges of funding millions of dollars to Hamas from the Muslim charity.  Obama promised to work to see that Muslims are allowed to fulfill zakat.  But he didn’t say what, if any, safeguards would replace the present rules and who would police the charitable giving to see that it doesn’t reach the wrong hands.

Hijab – The Muslim custom of women wearing the ‘’hijab,’’ (veil or head scarf) was also defended by Obama who noted the U.S. Government has gone to court to protect this practice, which has become a contentious problem in France and some other European countries.  But shouldn’t Muslims consider the old adage that ‘’When in Rome do as the Romans do?’’  How long would Christians last in Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim countries if they displayed symbols of their religion such as crucifixes and Bibles?  Muslims even refuse to wear ties because they think they resemble the cross when tied into a knot.  Did you ever see Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wear a tie?   Several suits have been filed in U.S. courts over the right to wear the head scarf.  One disturbing practice involves drivers’ licenses which are used for identification.  But how can one identify a person in a garment (burqa or niqab) with only peep holes for eyes?  This garment also could be used for espionage and interfere with police trying to identify perpetrators of crimes.

In Michigan a small claims court judge dismissed a Muslim woman’s suit because she would not remove her niqab so he could judge the ‘’truthfulness’’ of her testimony.  The Michigan Supreme Court voted later to give judges authority to regulate the appearance of witnesses.

In France, which in 2004 banned Muslim head scarves from being worn in schools, President Nicolas Sarkozy now wants to outlaw the burqa or niqab. They are synonymous terms for full-length garments that cover the entire body and leave only slits for eyes. Sarkozy asserted the full-body religious gown is a sign of the ‘debasement’ of women. ‘’In our country,’’ he said, ‘’we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut of from al social life, deprived of all identity.’’ The head covering also muffles the voice and further disguises identity and, since Muslim women are becoming more involved as terrorists, provides a cover for hidden weapons such as bombs.  The burqa has come under criticism in other parts of Europe, and Sweden bans them in schools.  Obama, of course, would lighten rather than tighten the Islamic dress rules.

 Golden Rule – Obama had trouble with several of his alleged facts in the Cairo speech and one glaring stretch was the reference to the Golden Rule.  He attributed this to ‘’every religion’’ when it clearly comes from the teachings of Christ.  Another obvious error was his calling the United States one of the largest Muslim countries based on population when population statistics prove him wrong.  But with a mouth with two sides; a glib tongue and an arrogant belief that you can fool all the people at least most of the time what do facts matter?

Assimilation

Muslims like Latinos descend on our shores not to assimilate or to become part of the proverbial melting pot of the past that has made America great but to live in their own enclaves with their own cultures and traditions.   They come here for a better economic life but eschew our laws except in exercising the Constitution to practice their religions and other freedoms and reap other benefits.

Like Chicanos and Latinos Muslims not only send money home but have, as noted, sent it to support radical Islamists who would overthrow our system of government.

While calling for support and more toleration of Muslims, Obama never said anything about their failure to assimilate, support radical Islamists or not to be content to live by our Constitution and laws.

The late Samuel P. Huntington in his book, Who Are We? stated that ‘’ A significant number of Muslims…do not have close ties or loyalty to the United States.’’  He also referred to the desire of Muslims to maintain the purity of their faith, which, in some instances, causes friction with Christians.

Muslims also have complained that U.S. public schools have steered their youth away from Islam and they called for a return to pure Islam.

Muslims use our laws to complain about mistreatment and insults to their sensitivities and they have even called for training of FBI agents and some police to prevent it.  They drive taxi cabs on their own religious terms refusing to transport passengers with alcohol and they want foot baths in certain places like airports so they can wash before attending prayers.

The Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) much like the ACLU seems to seek out such cultural clashes for publicity, legal action or to promote their agendas.

One outspoken critic of Islamic radicals is Rep. Peter King of New York.  He says points out that while the Department of Homeland Security cautions against right-wing extremism even including returning U.S. servicemen, it is noticeably quite about Islamic terrorists.  In fact it even substitutes ‘’overseas contingency operations’’ for the war on terror and eschews the use of the word, terrorist.

‘’We’re kidding ourselves by not addressing this issue,’’ asserted King. 

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has complained that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration is ‘’too soft’’ on terrorism.  That appears to be an understatement since printed reports state that it has ordered the FBI to read Miranda rights to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan.

The administration, however, is not too soft on free speech.

Holder used unrelated killings in Arkansas and Kansas to call for fast action on stiffer so-called hate crime laws that would not only restrict speech but shield pedophiles, according to some critics.  Holder said ‘’The Justice Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect the rights ensured under our Constitution.’’

And all along it appeared that the Obama administration was attempting to ignore and dismantle the Constitution with its razzle-dazzle plans.  But like the Bible it appears that you can quote the grand old document when you find a passage in it that suits your agenda.

Let’s hope Obama doesn’t give away the store while in Russia and that the Ruskies don’t come out as well from his visit as the Muslims did from his Cairo trip.  It’s a hot summer, and it would be a good time for Obama to take time out from all his frenzied action that is dismantling our sovereignty and individualistic ways for socialism and world government.

Since he learned after 20 years of association with him that the Rev. Wright was a bigot and left his church Obama says he is taking his time picking a new church.  When he meets with the Pope he ought to explore Catholicism.  They have a patron saint for ‘’mutts’’, as he termed himself, or Mulattoes to use the proper term.  Martin de Porres is the saint’s name.  Obama ought to look into it.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Five years ago in this space I wrote an essay on the war in Iraq in which I said the winner between the United States and Iran was still to be determined.  Unless the United States and Israel take action against the nuclear ambitions of Iran and its aggressive policy in Iraq we will soon have Iran as the undisputed winner if we don’t already.

Yes, despite the billions of dollars spent and the U.S. and Iraqi lives lost plus the disruption of the U.S. economy and fallout from Bush 43’s ill-conceived, ill-planned and badly executed war we have apparently lost to Iran.

What does that mean?  Let an expert, Yossef Bodansky, a military adviser and former consultant to Congress and the Defense Department, tell us.  He wrote in bin Laden, the Man who Declared War on America that if Iran won the war, Shiites would take over Baghdad, and ‘’for the first time since the 6th, B. C., the Persians will control the Mediterranean coast and the bulk of the Persian Gulf.’’

Iran is so close to building an atomic bomb it even has the Obama administration concerned.  And while Obama may thinks his oratorical skills are so good that he could talk a coyote  out of a chicken, he has them much exaggerated.  He had better face reality and soon.

If Iran wins it also will dominate virtually all of the oil and gas resources of the two nations and become undisputed king of not only the Middle East but also a threat to U.S. interests throughout the world.  China, an enemy of the United States whether Washington acknowledges it or not, already has a contract for oil with the Shiite-led Iraqi government, and Russia trades arms to the Arab nation.

As bad as Obama is when conservative critics criticize him and other Democrat presidents such as Clinton and Carter they always face an obstacle -- a Bush.  There is always a Bush the Democrats can cite who has done just about as bad in ill-advised wars, faulty economic policy, propaganda talks to school children, intelligent goofs and warped foreign policy goals like exporting democracy to Islam.

Bush 43 and his so-called myopic Vulcan advisers are responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, a war staged on faulty intelligence and ignorance of the conditions it faced in Iraq and even the real enemy, Iran.  In short, the United States removed Iran’s worst enemy instead of maintaining the status quo with Saddam Hussein who was acting as a buffer against Iran.

Hussein was a tyrant, but he was no immediate threat to the United States.  As Bodansky pointed out in another book, Iraq was a secular nation under Hussein and it had eradicated fundamentalist movements.  By defeating him, the United States freed Iraqi fundamentalism, including Shiites and Sunnis, Kurds, al-Qaeda and militant Islamists from throughout the Middle East who joined the fight.

The Vulcans, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Richard Armitage changed U.S. foreign policy from containment to aggression, preemption and unmatchable power for world domination.  Where do we get these misfits to run the government?  The Obama team is even worse, not only with cabinet members but with about 30 czars not properly vetted by Congress.  Some of these clowns are so-called intellectuals fresh from la-la land.

We now have what appears to be the worst regime in the history of the Republic at a time when the nation needs a strong leader who believes in protecting the country and the principles on which it was founded.  That man is not Barak Obama, the progressive who has peopled his administration with misfits, tax cheats, communists, homosexuals, goons and butter-fly chasers with zany ideas from elite universities.

Van Jones, who recently resigned under pressure, was an admitted Communist, who maligned the Republican Party with a vulgar epithet, and blamed Bush 43 for 9/11 and advocated changing the U.S. form of government.  He was exposed by WorldNetDaily, a conservative network web site and Glenn Beck, a Fox News commentator before he resigned under cover of darkness during a holiday weekend.

The New York Times and other apologists for the Obama administration such as the Dallas Morning News ignored the Jones story until he resigned just as they have other stories derogatory to the Obama administration.  The White House said Jones was not fired and that he was not senior enough to warrant the full vetting given other officials.  That statement doesn’t bolster White House veracity.

The Times reported, as an example, that ‘’Jones was a relatively minor figure in the administration…’’  That argument won’t wash either because Valerie Jarrett—a Chicago political operative and friend of Michelle Obama and ‘’big sister’’ and adviser to Obama—said she had watched Van Jones since his San Francisco days.  He was a controversial, radical organizer and ‘’green jobs’’ advocate in the Bay area.  The White House and Jarrett by her own admission were well aware of Jones’ background as was Obama.

Watch out for where Jones lands.  He could wind up with ACORN or SEIU, the two radical strong-arm labor organizations strongly supported by Obama or he could still spew his venom independently without official fetters.

Now more exposure is needed for the likes of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff and his brother, Dr. Ecekiel Emanuel, health adviser to the president; John Holdren, the science czar; Cass Susstein,the regulator czar, Mark Lloyd, the diversity czar, and Harold Koh, legal adviser to the Defense Department, plus Jarrett herself and her in depth  association in Chicago politics who Obama described as his confidant and ‘’big sister’’ adviser. 

Jarrett was married to William Jarrett in 1983.  He is the son of Vernon Jarrett, a reported Communist sympathizer with access to Obama’s political circles, according to a dispatch by WorldNetDaily.  Jarrett was deputy chief of staff for Mayor Richard Daley and friend to Michelle Obama and her husband-to-be.  

This list does cover all of the 30 or so czars who answer only to the president and compose the Obama underworld, but it will suffice to show the president is surrounded by advisers out of mainstream America and some outright radicals.  And if a man can be judged by the company he keeps, Obama could not honestly be labeled mainstream himself.

Here a closer thumb-nail sketch of this bunch of renegades who are under-vetted and overpowered and who answer only to Obama:

The EMANUELS, Rahm, straight out of the Chicago cesspool of politics who is chief of staff. And EZEKIEL EMANUEL, his brother and a medical ethicist and oncologist, who is the author of some radical ideas about health care rationing to save money.  He denies the charges, of course, but the record is there.  One of his proposals would ration basic guaranteed health care to only those who can fully participate in society.  This would eliminate care for the elderly and patients with dementia as well as the young with neurological disorders.

CASS SUSTEIN, regulator czar and close friend of Obama’s.  He also favors population control and doesn’t count the killing of babies as homicide. He thinks animals should be permitted to bring suit against people who would represent them.  He doesn’t like the Second Amendment gun rights and would like the government to control the internet.  He is often referred to by critics as an intellectual nut-job.  He certainly fits my definition of intellectual —‘’one so overeducated he has lost all touch with nature and reality.’’  In his new job he will have power to control people’s lives by enacting or interpreting regulations to do anything he wants administratively.  Judge Andrew Napolitano said his potential for damage could be ‘’limitless.’’  A couple of other things about this far out of the mainstream liberal:  One, he advocates a new Bill of rights, which would be an extension of Franklin Roosevelt’s progressive, socialistic programs.  And two, he is on Obama’s short list of nominees for the Supreme Court.  Thanks to the votes of six so-called Republicans it appears he will get Senate confirmation. 

JOHN HOLDREN, the science czar who also believes in population control measures and thinks the Constitution permits this including compulsory abortion during a population crisis.

MARK LLOYD, the diversity czar, who frowns on private ownership of the media, and would through the administrative process enact provisions that would stifle radio talk shows.  As an example he would tax broadcast outlets to provide money for alternative viewpoints.  He also would require broadcasters to cater to the demands of local communities.  Lloyd also denies that the so-call Fairness Doctrine, which requires both pro and con positions, has been repealed.

HAROLD KOH, former dean of the Yale Law School and new legal adviser to the Defense Department.  Critics charge that Koh’s international legal views undermine the U. S. Constitution and American sovereignty.  One critic charges that under Koh’s view the Constitution would become secondary to international law.  He also has been accused of thinking Sharia (Islamic) law is acceptable in some cases.

This group, of course, does not cover the 30 or so total czars or the sycophants, tax cheats, misfits and political drones and leaches who make up the czars and the Cabinet.  But it should tell you a lot about the man who occupies the Oval Office.

More voices are being heard against Obama’s tactic of appointing czars to get around congressional scrutiny and public vetting of their backgrounds and qualifications.  Rep. Mike Pence, a key Republican in Congress, wants an examination of the constitutionality of the practice and a halt to it.

But Republicans bear some guilt themselves in letting some questionable picks get approved, especially John Holdren whom they failed to ask penetrating questions about his past during his Senate confirmation hearings.  They also are responsible for Sustein’s expected approval.  Remember Republicans had the votes to convict Bill Clinton and oust him from the presidency if they had stuck together.  But a few spineless ones turned the tide and Bill continued his wayward ways.

In the meantime, Obama continues to appoint czars.  The latest is Ron Bloom, formerly an adviser to the United Steelworkers Union, to be senior counselor for manufacturing policy.  So, we have another fox guarding the hen house—a representative of unions that helped destroy U.S. manufacturing will now be in charge of resurrecting the industry.  Some critics have labeled Bloom a union ‘’hatchet man.’’  He is a Harvard Business School grad and also is a former investment banker.

BACK TO IRAQ

But I digress; let’s get back to conditions in Iraq and Iran’s coming victory there unless drastic action is taken by Obama, which is unlikely or Israel, which is a possibility.

Bush 43 could not have fouled up more in Iraq if the three stooges had been in charge of the operation.  He misjudged the opposition; was apparently ignorant of the Iraqi factions and background history of Iraq; staged the war with too few troops; accepted erroneous misinformation on WMD’s; ignored Iran’s active involvement in Iraq; tried to sell democracy where it was not wanted, and endorsed a government led by a Shiites cozy with Iran.

So, where do we stand today?  There is instability in Iraq both in the government and in increased violence as U.S. forces turn over more responsibility to the Iraqi Government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite with suspected ties to Iran

A new coalition of the country’s Shiite parties has abandoned Maliki’s Dawa Party which may run for re-election independently in elections scheduled for January 2010.  Maliki has lost considerable esteem because of his boasts that he could provide security without American forces.

Stability is unlikely regardless of the election outcome until somebody can sell love for Shiite’s to the Sunnis, which is about a likely as Ahmadinejad converting to Judaism.  The minority Sunni’s (40 percent) dominated the Shia majority (60 percent) under Saddam Hussein until the United States overthrew Hussein.  The Shiites supported by Iran will be in control but that won’t mean stability until Iran enters with force which is a possibility after the United States clears out for good.

As further evidence of Iran’s bid for regional control in the Middle East, it is supporting Shiites against Sunni’s, backed by Saudi Arabia, in Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula next to Saudi Arabia.  This is another conflict that could spread.

The Obama administration is planning to leave Iraq ahead of schedule.  Obama, who is cozy with Muslims as evidenced by his heralded Cairo speech and his entertainment of prominent US Muslims at a dinner marking the beginning of Ramadan, pledged to ‘’responsibly end the war in Iraq.’’

Whatever the president with Muslim filial ties to the religion means by a responsible end to the war is ambiguous. Does it mean an independent Iraq free of influence from Iran?  That is doubtful since it would probably require force and Obama appears to be an appeasing, negotiating U.S.-blaming president.

CHANGE

Obama ran his campaign on ‘’change’’ but it is change that most Americans apparently hadn’t counted on.  David Horowitz, a former communist and 60’s radical, stated flatly, ‘’These people (Obama czars) want to destroy the (U.S.) system we live under.  They want power.’’

Maybe as more light is shone on the secretive and apparently unvetted czars they will be flushed out like Van Jones.  Then the Obama administration can issue more statements about how unimportant they are and the Times and News can offer support to their readers that they try to keep in the dark.

In the meantime the administration will probably procrastinate and appease Iran as it pursues nukes and takes over the Middle East.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his sidekick, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, will continue to berate the United States before the United Nations. 

The least Obama could do would be to withhold his apologies and defend the nation against these sick clowns who delight in maligning it.       

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Much ado has been made of President Obama lying about his programs and agenda recently and rightly so.  But he is far from the only president in history who has lied deliberately to the American people.  He is perhaps more brazen and adept at it than most of his predecessors.

From the early days of the Republic starting with Thomas Jefferson, presidents have lied. Some, like Obama and Bill Clinton, have lied for personal gain and to advance their agendas regardless of the nation’s welfare and others, like Ronald Reagan, have lied honestly believing they were benefiting the country by so doing.

Even Abraham Lincoln, dubbed ‘’Honest Abe’’ by history, lied. Judge Andrew P. Napolitana in his book, The Constitution in Exile, devotes a whole chapter to ‘’Dishonest Abe.’’

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S. C.) blurted out ‘’You lie,’’ to Obama during his address to an unnecessary and highly political joint session of Congress on his controversial healthcare program.  The House censored Wilson for breaching decorum but not truth, which is an absolute defense against libel.

 Wilson took exception to Obama’s claim that illegal aliens were not covered in the president’s health plan.  Obama knew, however, that he intended to include them and later said legalizing them was the way to do it.  Obviously, he wanted to cover them all along. 

Obama has lied to the American people about the government control he strives to gain in the health bill as well as his overall radical agenda and the true direction he wants to take the country.  His agenda if enacted would unbind the nation from its constitutional moorings and reshape it in another direction, according to his own words about ‘’change.’’

David Horowitz, a former radical and admitted Communist, likens Obama to the ‘’Manchurian Candidate’’ who he claims is a tool of the far left with a radical agenda to change the United States.

Forbes magazine in a special article about Obama’s alleged lying (July 2, 2009) claims he lied when he said these things about his healthcare bill:

No one will be compelled to buy coverage; there will be no new taxes on employer benefits; the government can better control rising health care costs than the private sector; a public plan won’t be a Trojan Horse for a single-payer monopoly, and patients don’t have to fear rationing.

Obama’s program as envisioned apparently isn’t selling on its own merits even with a Democrat-dominated Congress.  Maybe that’s why he has to board Air Force One almost daily at taxpayer expense to deliver garrulous propaganda speeches to try and sell it, as he did in the expensive oration to the joint session of Congress.

He also saturated the television networks with personal appearances to spew his propaganda.  When one turns on the boob tube more than likely he will find Obama bellowing into a microphone touting his questionable and progressive, socialistic agenda.

As stated Obama and Clinton are both guilty of lying to advance themselves and their agendas above those of the nation.  It may be close, but Clinton probably takes the blue ribbon as the superlative presidential liar of all time, at least at this stage.  ‘’I did not have sex with that woman,’’ he proclaimed looking the nation straight in the eye.  What gall!

The statement is risible, of course, as well as ridiculous.  Under his convenient definition of sex Monica Lewinsky had sex with him while he remained pure.  It may be difficult to fathom but try to understand we have a congenital liar here that apparently didn’t know any other way to try and protect his large flank.  He even cluttered the definition of ‘’is’’ to try and deflect critics of his behavior.

But Obama is catching up fast to challenge Bill’s standing as the No. 1 presidential prevaricator.  How about this one he told a television interviewer about ACORN’s problems?  ‘’Frankly it’s not something I’ve followed closely.  I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.’’  The nation’s in a financial crisis and the president doesn’t know his former employer is getting a government dole of about $5 billion and involved in all kinds of fraud?  What’s not to believe? 

MORE CLINTON LIES

The joke from Hope also lied to a grand jury and was barred from practicing law even in his home state of Arkansas.  This was a lie to try and save his worthless arse.  But he also lied to avoid his constitutional, sworn duty to protect and defend the United States by covering up both the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building and TWA Flight 800.  He, of course, denies this. 

He blamed Flight 800 on mechanical failure rather than a flying bomb, which some experts claim it was.  And reporter Jayna Davis bravely and painstakingly proved Iraqi militants were involved in the Murrah Federal Building blast.  Then there was the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996; attacks on two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the USS Cole attack in 2000.  But Bill saw no evil and heard no evil.

He may, however, unwittingly have given himself away in his memoirs (p.718) when he noted:  ‘’…terrorist groups often (some experts say always) enjoy both state sponsorship and popular support.  Moreover, getting to the bottom of the networks could raise difficult and dangerous questions as the Khobar Towers investigation did when the possibility of Iran’s support for terrorists was raised.’’

Does this tell us why some of the blasts on his watch were covered up or ignored?  Had he found out that a country was involved, he would have had to declare war to fulfill his sworn obligation ‘’to protect and defend’’ or face ignominy the way Jimmy Carter did. 

Clinton has a long list of other offenses and lied from the day he took the presidential oath.  Former Congressman Bob Barr in his The Meaning of Is said national security is the foremost reason Bill Clinton should have been removed from office.  Some critics even charge that Clinton’s pacifistic policies were responsible for the 9-11 attack.

THE SPHINX

Thomas Jefferson was a vain man who seemed to hold vendettas against those who either challenged him or opposed him and his views, especially John Adams, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.  He also hated his cousin John Marshall who he charged with usurping power as chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Adams accused Jefferson of lying about Burr and also chastised him for proclaiming Burr’s guilt for alleged treason in the House of Representative ‘’before a jury had tried him.’’  Jefferson also ignored the Constitution and Bill of Rights in seeking to take Burr into custody in Mississippi.  Juries acquitted Burr of all charges three different times.

Jefferson hired shady characters to spread lies about Burr and Adams as well as Hamilton whom he hated almost as much as Burr.

In the election of 1800, which he would have lost straight out had it not been for Burr’s efforts in carrying New York City, he maligned Adams through an unprincipled propagandist named James Callender.  Jefferson stayed in the background, as he usually did, but supported Callendar’s publication financially.  He even read the proofs of some of Callendar’s harangues.  Callender later turned on him and revealed his affair with Sally Hemmings, a Jefferson-owned slave.

Adams forgave Jefferson but knew well of his involvement in the false charges against him.  His wife, Abigail, and son, John Quincy, were not as magnanimous in embracing the alleged family friend, however.  John Quincy called him ‘’A slur upon the moral government of the world.’’

Jefferson also encouraged Philip Freneau to establish the National Gazette to attack George Washington’s administration in which he served as Secretary of State.  He was especially critical of Hamilton’s financial policies as Secretary of the Treasury.  He falsely accused Hamilton of cooking the books and employed Freneau in the State Department as translator and talked Washington out of firing him.

This should suffice to show the veracity of the sage from Monticello doesn’t rate any higher than that of many other presidents with questionable agendas and high personal ambitions.  There are so many contradictions his Jefferson’s character that one historian, Joseph J. Ellis, called him ‘’American Sphinx.’’

HONEST ABE

Like George W. Bush, Judge Napolitano contends that Abraham Lincoln ‘’misled the nation into an unnecessary war’’ instead of simply freeing the slaves and compensating their owners.  Lincoln chose to deny states their rights to participate or nor to participate voluntarily in the Union.

‘’But with very little regard for honesty, Lincoln increased federal power and assaulted the Constitution,’’ wrote Judge Napolitano.  The States’ right to secede ‘’is clearly implicit in the Constitution’’ Napolitano claims as have other historians and writers.

Even Lincoln himself admitted the war was not about freeing the slaves, and he delayed announcing the Emancipation Proclamation until it was more politically favorable to do so.  Lincoln declared war against the South without the approval of Congress, which violated the Constitution the same as the recent wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have done.

Lincoln also gave us the first income tax, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned citizens without trial and shuttered several newspapers, among other offenses that historians and Napolitano have detailed.  So, ‘’Honest Abe’’ was not all that honest even though he saved the Union by force and unconstitutional methods that some have charged amounted to ‘’dictatorship.’’

WOODROW WILSON

Harry Truman’s hero lied in 1916 when he ran as a candidate of peace.  His second term election slogan was ‘’He kept us out of the war.’’  But not for long!  Like Frank Roosevelt’s maneuvers leading up to World War II, Wilson’s actions led us into the war unnecessarily.  As an example, he was warned by Germany about allowing passengers on the Lusitania, an English passenger ship that was sunk with the loss of 1,198 lives.  The ship carried war materials and Wilson knew it.  The sinking was a major catalyst that speeded the U.S. into the war that even Winston Churchill said the United States had no reason to be in.

Wilson won the 1916 election because of a split in the Republican Party caused by the re-entry into politics of Teddy Roosevelt.  Some historians claim that bankers wanted Wilson to be president so they would have a better chance of passing the Federal Reserve Act and gaining control of the nation’s money and credit.  The bankers supported both Roosevelt and Wilson.  William Howard Taft was defeated for a second term but was rewarded by being named Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism claims that under Wilson’s direction during World War I ‘’America became a (temporary) fascist country.’’

He wrote that Wilson established the first modern propaganda ministry; ‘’political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon, and thrown in jail simply for expressing private opinions;’’ Wilson shut down newspapers and magazines for criticizing the government and was guilty of many other suppressions of liberty, Goldberg pointed out. 

The present Obama administration is similar in many ways to that of Wilson’s and could get worse if Congress and the people don’t, to paraphrase the bard, assume a backbone if they have it not.

SINCE WILSON

There have been 16 presidents since Wilson including Obama and at least nine of those and possibly more have either lied outright, deceived the public, usurped power or made sub-rosa deals in foreign or domestic policy.  They include FDR, HST, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama.

FDR deliberately goaded Japan into war and put the fleet in harm’s way to take the first blow and live up to his campaign promise of not going to war unless attacked first.  The Japanese code had been broken and he knew of the coming attack at Pearl Harbor, according to Robert Stinnett who wrote Day of Deceit, the Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor.  As further proof Stinnett said major news representatives were told By Gen. George Marshall about the impending attack but were sworn to secrecy. 

This is more proof that FDR commanded the press much like Obama does today.  He even lied about his health and the press went along while he was being carried around like Charley McCarthy, the dummy.

The machinations of this would-be dictator and egotistical invalid who ran four times for president have been well documented and there is no need to rehash them here except to note that he rates high in the pantheon of presidential prevaricators.

TRUMAN AND THE OTHERS

Truman’s adamant and impenetrable stances once he had made up his mind about something cost the country dearly.  He absolutely refused to concede there were communists in government although the State Department and some others were infested with them.

They influenced policy and were responsible for the loss of China.  Truman’s Secretary of State George Marshall, a fine general naïve in foreign policy tried to broker peace between Chaing Kai-shek and the Chinese communists and committed a major blunder in the process. 

In fact historian Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania in What If?, a book of essays by military historians, writes that Marshall persuaded Chaing not to attack a key Chinese city that probably would have won the war had he won it.

Communists in the State Department convinced Truman, Marshall and Dean Acheson to withhold support and funds from Chaing.  There was plenty of evidence that communists were in government had Truman cared to look and it is incredulous that he didn’t know it.  He certainly deceived the American people about it.  His mistaken policies led to war in Korea and later Vietnam and Waldron says even the Cold War might have been different or milder sans his misguided efforts.

Neither Truman nor Marshall was communist but their policies aided the communist cause.

OTHER LIES AND DECEPTIONS

Of the others one, Richard Nixon, lied himself out of office in the Watergate scandal and some critics  contend Lyndon Johnson destroyed his presidency by lying and misleading the public about the Tonkin Gulf incident and the Vietnam War losses

Bush 41 lied about not rising taxes and may have blundered into the Gulf War by misleading Saddam Hussein about U.S. policy in the Middle East and what  would and would not be tolerated.  Oil interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia also blurs Bush’s record in taking us into the undeclared war.

Ronald Reagan lied about the Iran Contra affair although his intentions for stopping the spread of communism to Central America were well meant.  Yes the icon of Camelot, John F. Kennedy, also was less than candid about the settlement of the Cuban Missile crisis and what was given up to get a deal.

Bush 43 lied about events leading up to the war in Iraq and the claim that Iraq with WMD’s was an immediate threat to the United States.  Vincent Bugliosi of Charles Manson prosecution fame has written a book condemning Bush for misleading the American people and taking the nation to war on a ‘’lie.’’

The lying and deceiving of other presidents before him in no way exonerates Obama from his lies.  Two or more wrongs don’t make a right.  But it just goes to show that lying and deceiving seems to be common to those in the first magistrate’s office.

It may be that some deceiving is necessary by presidents because of the sensitivity of certain matters, especially in foreign policy.  But lying for personal gain and political advancement or changing the nature of the country from the principles on which it was founded to a socialistic or fascistic state is unpardonable.

One way to stop the power grab of presidents if for Congress to reassume the role intended for it by the founders.  But Congress has abdicated or delegated its powers to the point it is almost dysfunctional.  What powers it has not delegated, the judicial and executive, especially the executive, have usurped.

It is time to rein in the powers of the presidency, which was never intended to dominate in the balance of power structure.  When presidents prevaricate they should be impeached or forced to abdicate.

Top

An Essay
By Richard C. Sizemore

Asked to respond when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Martin Luther King, President Harry Truman reportedly said ‘’By God I didn’t give it to him.’’

Harry had a tendency to shoot from the lip without engaging his brain, but he and J. Edgar Hoover had MLK down as a rabble rouser too cozy with communists at the time.  He was not either, of course, and led the fight to free Negroes from discrimination.

There are many who had roughly the same reaction as Truman did to the prize being awarded to President Obama perhaps with more justification.  Some of the reverberations about the Peace Committee’s decision are amusing.  Here are some of my favorites:

--The Vatican should canonize Obama while he’s still alive said conservative pundit David Frum.  ‘Think of all the amazing miracles he might perform in the future!’’

--‘’Awarding him the Nobel Prize now is like giving a medal to a marathon runner who has just managed the first few kilometers,’’ Claus Christian Malzahn Spiegel Online.

--‘’I think it’s (his head) getting so big that his ears actually fit,’’ Rush Limbaugh.

--‘’It’s like awarding the Heisman football trophy after the first football game of the season,’’ little ‘ole me.

Some pundits think he should reject the prize.  Others think it was meant to influence him to continue his appeasing policies in the future.  One supporter claimed the prize was not for achievements but for those who have made honest efforts for peace, even though they were not successful.

It seems to me that would qualify Neville Chamberlain who was one of the masters of appeasement.  While it may be premature to put Obama in Chamberlain’s class, he appears well on his way to getting a piece of paper denoting ‘’peace in our time’’ whether it means war or not.  If he takes the Nobel Committee’s bait, which he may not even need, he could well replace Chamberlain for the ‘’concessions-for-peace’’ or ‘’selling sovereignty for peace’’ award.  He has a good start.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger claims the Nobel Committee has become an anti-American organization that uses its awards to influence world opinion and American policy.  Political analysts Dick Morris and Eileen McGann agree.  ‘’The Nobel Prize is really Obama’s payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations,’’ they wrote.

Even the liberal Dallas Morning News editorialized ‘’The Nobel committee has demeaned the award’s value…’’  It said Obama doesn’t deserve the honor.

OTHERS WHO HAVE RECEIVED IT

Three other U.S. presidents have received the prize, and all have been liberals or progressives with a low regard for U.S. sovereignty in favor of one-world government.  They were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both progressives, which some pundits equate with fascism.  The other was Jimmy Carter. 

Ronald Reagan’s policies ended the Cold War, but his confrontation policy instead of appeasement and fawning engagement never got him the prize.

It is interesting to recall how the three U.S. presidents who received the award received their backing from bankers and one-worlders.

Bankers backed the little-known governor of New Jersey, Wilson, in 1912 because they thought they would have a better chance of setting up the Federal Reserve System to gain control of the nation’s money and credit than they would have if William Howard Taft remained in office.  They also supported Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive who entered the race and thereby helped defeat Taft who was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Carter was supported by banker David Rockefeller and given membership in the Trilateral Commission, a one-world organization that Rockefeller formed.  It is sister to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), with which Rockefeller has long been associated.  Both advocate one-world government.  

How do these governors who are seldom heard of on the national scene not only get to be president but also get to be leaders in dismantling U.S. sovereignty to promote the one-world agenda? 

CLINTON AND OBAMA

There is a glaring similarity between Bill Clinton and Barak Obama.  Both were little known and both had checkered backgrounds.

Bill Clinton, or Billy Blythe before he changed his name for reasons he doesn’t even seem to be sure of, had a tarnished background including accusations of draft dodging, attempted rape and illicit sex procurement by state police.  Yet he ran and was elected president and as a member of the CFR championed world government.

Clinton’s father, William Jefferson Blythe jr., died in an automobile accident before he was born and he was named William Jefferson Blythe III.  His mother remarried a car dealer named Roger Clinton.  Bill Blythe, the future president, changed his name to Clinton, although in his autobiography he relates how he admired his father and tried to obtain any tidbit of information about him.

He doesn’t have a definite reason for changing his name but lists several possibilities, one so that he would have the same name as his half-brother, Roger.  ‘’I didn’t want the difference in our lineage ever to be an issue for him (Roger)…’’ Clinton wrote.  If he considered how it might affect his political ambitions he didn’t mention it. 

Clinton ran an anemic foreign policy that involved shipment of U.S. military secrets to China for personal gain and failure to capture Osama bin Laden when he had the chance.  He never received the Nobel Peace Prize but is listed here because of the similarity between him and Obama as well as former governors Wilson and Carter.

Somebody behind the scene always seems to be pulling the strings in the U.S. election process, which has long been broken and manipulated.

The convoluted past of Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro raises questions about whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or some place else.  He has not released the long form of his birth certificate and has spent at least a million dollars by some accounts for lawyers to keep it and his college records secret.  The logical conclusion is that he has something to hide.  Incidentally Obama’s Muslim father also dies in an auto accident the same as Clinton’s.  The only difference is Obama’s father was reported killed while driving drunk. 

Obama accomplished little as a senator that would indicate he was qualified to be the nation’s first magistrate.  He also has done nothing to deserve an award for fomenting peace.  He owes his presidency to several sources including leftist George Soros, the socialist Hungarian billionaire,  and, some critics contend, Obama’s puppeteer; ACORN, which is accused of voter registration fraud in several states; and the SEIU, a union that donated millions of dollars to his campaign and one that is noted for its thug tactics.

OBAMA’S REACTION

The Nobel committee awarded the prize to Obama for his ‘’extraordinary efforts to strengthen diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.’’  World reaction to the award has been so drastic that several members of the committee have felt obliged to make statements defending their action and lauding Obama’s alleged accomplishments.

Obama said he was ‘’deeply humbled’’ and that may carry as much credibility as Bill Clinton claiming to be chaste.  But anything so obviously spurious, even to Obama, must elicit some explanatory reaction, especially if he intends to keep the prize instead of giving it back as several pundits have suggested.  Guess he isn’t that humble.

Many critics have written that the Nobel committee debased the prize by awarding it to Obama at this stage of the game.  But the prize was already debased when one considers that Al Gore got it for promoting pseudo science; Yasser Arafat received it for getting rich while promoting peace but having no intention of supporting Israel’s existence, and Mohamed ELBaradei of the UN Atomic Energy Agency also received it while nuclear weapons proliferated on his watch.

Two academic constitutional scholars –Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham – questioned whether the Constitution permits Obama to accept the award or the prize money.  They wrote in The Washington Post that the award runs afoul of the Emolument Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9 that prevents such acceptance from any ‘’King, Prince or foreign State.’’

Rotunda and Pham point out that ‘’… the award …is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state.’’  They also note that the prize money is not Obam’s whether he plans to donate it to charity or not and that it would belong to the United States.  If he donated it to charity he might get a huge tax deduction that could be equated with a gift.

The Post story also noted this is the second time that Obama has run afoul of the Emolument Clause.  The first was acceptance of the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, Saudi Arabia’s highest honor, from King Abdullah.

Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson received their awards after they left office so the Emolument Clause may not come into play.  As for Carter it’s appears comparable to Oscar Levant’s quote that sex the first time don’t count.  Carter’s presidency shouldn’t count, or at least a lot of people would like it not to count.

PEACE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

There is no tangible evidence that Obama’s foreign policy endeavors thus far in his administration have led to or will lead to peace now or in the future.  A more accurate description of his award would be an ‘’appease prize’’ instead of peace prize.  The record:   

Obama has bad-mouthed and blamed America for the world’s problems since becoming president, and he lost no time in doing so.

Early in his administration at the Summit of the Americas he sat idly by for almost an hour as Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega denounced U.S. policies in Cuba and South America.  He also shook hands with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, an enemy of the United States who handed him a book that insulted this country.  He could but didn’t defend the United States for containing Castro and the spread of communism in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Greneda and other hemisphere locations by supplying billions of dollars in aid and support in the region.

He also lifted restrictions on Cuba.  He ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay and still doesn’t know where to put the terrorist prisoners located there, and ignores the cost and other problems in relocating them.   He has done the CIA and its loyal operatives a disservice and threat by planning to disclose interrogation methods used against the terrorists.

At the G20 meeting in Europe, Obama blamed the world financial crisis on the United States.  He has stretched out his hand to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong-II despite their adamancy about rushing to build atomic weapons and delivery systems and hatred for the United States.

Obama quashed the missile defense programs planned for Poland and the Czech Republic and in nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia’s Vladimir Putin (or Dmitry Medvedev) has agreed to let the Ruskies visit our missile sites.  He has shown little support for Israel.

But his worst blunder probably occurred in Cairo where he tried to appease Muslims and berated America and Israel while ignoring the long record of broken promises by Palestinians in dealing with Israel.

His open-arms speech to Muslims in Cairo will afford them more freedom in giving to their charities (possibly even to slip cash to militants such as Hamas).  They also will find it easier to build more mosques from which hatred often emanates; hide behind Muslim garb like hijabs; send more students here in exchange programs and encounter a much friendlier atmosphere in which to try and establish Sharia law as the Quran directs.

Obama also accepted Saudi Arabia’s highest honor and donned it before bowing to King Abdullah.  He claimed he never bowed but video pictures clearly show that he did. 

Although Obama’s outreach to Muslims makes it easier for them to infiltrate the U.S. government and institutions, they are doing quite well on their own, thank you.  A new book Muslin Mafia by two investigative writers and the son of one who went underground with the lead Muslim propaganda organization, CAIR, exposes it as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.  The book claims proof that CAIR is affiliated with al-Qaida and Hamas and plans to infiltrate and destroy the American system of government and replace it with Sharia or Islamic law.

The authors are P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry and the undercover agent is Gaubatz’ son, Chris Gaubatz.

Their book has elicited a call by several congressmen for an investigation and end to the political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.

One other note:  A member of Obama’s Council on Fairth-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships – Dalia Mogahed – has defended Sharia law.  Critics say this can be harmful by providing an American approval of this extreme ideology.  Obama may not be a Muslim, as he claims, but his background, actions and associations appear to put him as close to that religion or political movement as R and T on a keyboard.
Obama’s appeasement policies and fawning, anemic foreign policy overtures will have to wait for a definitive decision as to their result.  But the record is clear.  Despite the Norwegians and the Nobel commission’s one-world agenda, appeasement doesn’t work.  Look at what happened to those that gave into Hitler and Stalin, for openers.

Obama seems hell bent on selling this nation and its underpinnings for a song.  As Leslie Pruden put it in the Washington Times:  ‘’He is the first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang.’’

But he’s got his unconstitutional and undeserving peace prize just the same.  

Top