Tuesday, June 30, 2009

But Why Would HUSSEIN Obama Do That? Part 67

Because fuck you. That's why.



debbieschlussel.com

The pettiness and low-class behavior of the current Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, apparently knows no bounds and no nadirs too low to which to aspire.
That's displayed by the Obama administration's paint-over of the name of former President George W. Bush on an airplane he flew as a pilot in the United States Air Force.
*****
Sickening. Say what you want about Bush's service in the Air Force. That was his plane, and to paint over it and cover up his name is just disgusting.
At least President Bush served, unlike a certain guy whose only Selective Service registration on file is a fraudulent, fabricated one from 2008.
And please don't tell me that there's no evidence Obama knew about this or ordered it. He's the Commander-in-Chief. The fish rots from the head down. He was the one responsible for the plane flyover debacle in Manhattan.
And he's responsible for this deliberate act of the uber-petty.

QUOTE OF CLARITY

So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?
The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.

- Caroline Glick

Laughable Quote Of The Day

"Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."
- Hillary Clinton in Ed Salvadorian interview, June 2009

Will we ever be able to get rid of him? Only if he allows free and fair elections...

... and what would be in that for him?
NOTHING.
...

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism...

...
Our World: Ideologue-in-chief
...
Jun. 29, 2009
Caroline Glick
THE JERUSALEM POST
...
For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.
Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."
While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for - most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.
Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates - presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice - to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.
After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.
Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."
No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.
IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real"American interests.
So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.
Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.
Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.
While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.
Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actualevents to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.
TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.
Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.
And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."
His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in *The Wall Street Journal*, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.
Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."
But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.
FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.
While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed - as it has in North Korea - or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.
Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.
So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?
The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.
For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.
Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.
And then they will sink him.
caroline@carolineglick.com

Obama's Attraction to Human Rights Violators

Comment from AT reader:
Posted by: FulghumInk
Jun 30, 12:01 AM
"Hussein Obama accedes to that which he aspires for us. Our forefathers used to call it treason."
...
June 30, 2009
americanthinker.com
By Lauri B. Regan
...
"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
- Barack Obama's Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009
...
The left in this country spent the Bush years wringing their hands, frustrated over efforts at nation building in the Mideast. Newsweek's attempt at rewriting history with claims of success in Iraq due to Obama's policies won't change the fact that the Bush administration's "war of choice" was a success. An entire population of repressed people now lives in freedom due to United States Mideast policy under President Bush. And the Iranian people desire a similar fate if only the American President were to seize the opportunity and support the populace demanding that their voices be heard.
Unfortunately, President Obama has traveled the globe handing out carrots to each and every one of America's enemies, leaders who also happen to be repressive dictators. Yet, no matter which tyrant Obama approaches with his open hand, he has, as my kids like to say, been "dissed."
With each fist bump from Hugo Chavez, Team Medvedev/Putin, Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one would expect that Obama would learn to close his open palm and offer up the tough policy that he promised would appear. Yet the only world leader who has seen Obama's stick wielding, clenched fist is Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu.
So where are the voices of the left now, as Obama attempts to strong arm a sovereign nation -- one in which citizens of all ethnicity live free -- into ceding land to a sworn enemy of freedom? This despite the fact that history has proven the Palestinian people both unwilling and incapable of peace with Israel. Why is no one questioning the amount of energy being expended by the Obama administration on finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while remaining silent with regard to the world's true human rights violators.
Meghan Clyne, a speechwriter in the Bush White House, wrote an editorial in the New York Post last month addressing "Obama's dangerous silence" with regard to dissidents the world over. Candidate Obama promised the world that he would make human rights a focus of his administration yet he has remains silent when it comes to addressing issues that face citizens of almost every country to which he has reached out - and then some.
Unlike Obama who utters beautiful yet shallow words read from a teleprompter, Clyne points out that:
"Bush sent a clear message to those risking everything for their freedom: If you stand up for liberty, the president will stand with you."
From Hillary Clinton's clear statements that human rights in China take a back seat to economic concerns, to Obama's Latin American love fest with the Castro bothers and Hugo Chavez, and finally his outreach (and bowing down) to the Muslim world as a whole, Obama is dissing every freedom-loving man, woman and child living under repressive regimes. And yet he continues to attempt to pummel Israel into submission in the hopes of forming a new nation for the repressed Palestinian people, while befriending the real oppressors.
Obama was handed a golden opportunity to take back the role of leader of the free world when Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs stole the election in Iran. Yet, Obama continued to look and play the fool with all of his make nice policies and statements rather than voice a strong decisive (presidential?) statement in support of democracy. By failing to refuse to recognize the illegitimate government, Obama's initial reaction was reminiscent of his time spent in the Illinois State Senate voting present. After suggesting that he would continue "negotiations" with whomever held the title of President, the opinion polls forced him to finally make a weak statement, drawing the ire of Ahmadinejad (who was taken by surprise since he has gotten used to Obama's can't we just be friends foreign policy).
On the other hand, Obama has had strong words for the citizens of Honduras who have legally ousted President Zelaya after he refused to obey the rule of law and the constitution. In a statement in which he made it clear that he is "deeply concerned" by the events in Honduras, Obama went on to say,
"I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference."
And Obama is in good company as Mary O'Grady points out in the Wall Street Journal:
"Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground....
The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton...expose[s her] true colors."
Sadly, the Obama presidency keeps getting "curiouser and curiouser." According to Obama, Israel's settlement building is illegal, the Iranian elections are legitimate, and the Honduran military's respect for the rule of law is "not legal." In other words, it is fine for the Obama administration to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign ally, it has no interest in defending a popular uprising in which people are dying in the name of freedom, and it will support the Chavez-cloned dictator in the face of a democratic struggle.
Many have suggested that due to the voter fraud pervasive during his campaign, Obama is not troubled by a similar occurrence in the Iranian and Honduran elections. Yet this is the same man that made human rights a benchmark of his campaign speeches. And how does one rationalize his completely irrational responses to the various events taking place across the globe as citizens of repressed nations attempt to achieve freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world persists on choosing the wrong side of the fight.
The only discernable pattern to Obama's foreign policy decisions since taking office seems to reflect an attraction by Obama to dictatorial governments and disdain for freedom loving democracies. How else can one rationalize the disparity between his silence and weak response to the protests and bloodshed in Iran and his powerful and demanding response to the coup in Honduras? America's President is consistently supportive of tyrants at the expense of oppressed citizens who bear a terrible price for his policies.
During the final years of the Bush administration rumors abounded that he was quietly planting and nurturing seeds of democracy in Iran in the hopes that regime change would occur from within. Unfortunately, the sprouting of freedom reflected in the uprisings occurred under the auspices of a dictator-loving American President who cares more about international friendships with authoritarian despots than he does about human rights the world over. Americans that voted for this man are equally responsible for the human rights disasters that may occur world wide under his watch.
20 Comments on "Obama's Attraction to Human Rights Violators"

Friday, June 26, 2009

When did the lowbrows take over the culture?

June 26, 2009
americanthinker.com
By James Lewis
...
I've been trying to grasp for a truth that is so obvious that all of us know it. But it's not a polite truth, so we don't talk about it. Yet I think it's important to say it out loud, because it is a truth that haunts our national discourse.
As a nation we are under the thumb of idiots. Not just indoctrinated, or wrong-thinking, or power-hungry, or manipulative, or even malevolent people. No, I mean real lowbrows, people who constantly fall for really stupid ideas. Neanderthals. (Look at the Governor of California just running the state budget into the ground. See what I mean? That's not just incompetence. It takes special stupidity, almost a deliberate, willful absence of real thinking.)
The Federal EPA is about to officially declare carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. That's not just false and unscientific; it's not just an excuse for taxing everything in sight, including breathing. It's not merely wrong. It's idiotic. It marks a low point in our national conversation. Scientists or engineers with a grain of sense shouldn't be taking the EPA seriously for a second. Forget the "climate experts," with their grossly inadequate computer models. Normally intelligent people should boggle at the EPA. They are bizarre. Only the truly ignorant could fall for this level of ignorance. Or those who just can't think.
Or look at Obama's unbelievable spending spree. No sane and sensible taxpayer could possibly believe that spending trillions and trillions of dollars on blue-sky fantasies makes any sense at all; the only reason Americans aren't in open rebellion yet is that half of them can't believe it's happening, and the other half are idiots. We haven't seen the effect (yet) on our pocketbooks. There's food in the stores still, and housing has gotten cheaper. But let Obama's budget affect our wallets directly and just watch the voters explode with rage.
The Democrats in Congress are trying desperately to put the brakes on Obama's egomaniacal ambitions because they can see themselves going over the edge in 2010. In a self-respecting, intelligent culture, the Obama budget would be dead on arrival. It's an insult to our national intelligence. (His foreign policy is more of the same.)
Or look at the global warming farce, still hotly pursued by the political classes in Europe and this country, although the Australians seem to be coming to their senses. China now has more millionaires than the UK, because they use all their resources, like coal, to fire their industrial plants. They will never sacrifice a single luxury car to the cap and trade fraud. Neither will India. China and India have been under the thumb of egomaniacal socialists (in the case of India) and communists (in the case of China). They've been there, done that, seen the suffering.
No wonder those Chinese college students fell all over themselves with laughter when Timothy Geithner assured them that Obama would never spend the United States into debt. What an idiot! They laughed because Geithner's stupidity or mendacity was too obvious for words.
That's how we should all react to the miserable frauds who are now in national office. You have to dull your senses with drugs or endless propaganda to fall for it. I've sometimes wondered how many people must have killed off their critical thinking with alcohol and drugs. I know a walking few drug casualties myself, people who just burned out their brains. I'm sure they voted for Obama.
Or maybe there's such a thing as learned stupidity. How else can so many people be so idiotic? Our national IQ has dropped to about 75: Several standard deviations below normal.
Well, we have now voted in a President for the lowbrows. Yes, Obama himself is smart enough; even smart enough to say a few years ago that he didn't feel ready for the presidency. Well, now we can see why he said that. But legions of idiots voted for a man who was plainly unqualified, even by his own estimation, and surrounded by a bunch of malignant sociopaths like Wright and Ayers and all the rest. How could he possibly win? Well, Obama cynically appealed to the idiots -- the young, the stupid, the naive, the silly, the rock idol worshippers, and probably the drug-addled masses, all the lowbrows in the land.
That includes the idiot savants of academia. Academics have a very narrow band of intelligence, something that satirists since Aristophanes have noticed and poked fun at. The first philosopher in Western history was Thales of Elea; Thales featured in Greek folklore as a man who walked around at night gazing at the stars only to fall into a ditch. That's probably a folksy giggle at the absent-minded professor who is constantly bumping into walls. But there's a big element of truth in it. Academics can be incredibly ignorant and dumb outside of their small areas of expertise. Professors and media scribblers generally lack human smarts. They are sure suckers for all the con artists of the day.
Obama is a smooth-talking hustler who has specialized in charming academic liberals, like a smart graduate student who needs to impress his teachers with every word. They just dote on him, like a proud parent smiling on a favorite child. He's their dream, a black man who sounds so smart.
In his press conferences he hypnotizes all the ink-stained wretches of the media. It's a sight to behold. The man swats a fly and the suck-ups of the media go ga-ga with applause, and go back and write articles about it. That's not just a reflection on their (lack of) character and judgment. It's not just their childish immaturity. It's a reflection on their brains, or rather, on all that empty space between their ears. Our media stars are just not very bright. They're idiots. That single fact explains a lot. (And yes, they are also corrupt, easily seduced, haunted by deadlines, decadent in their values, and very prone to mob thinking. But if they had any brains it might be harder to manipulate them like this. The White House just pulls their strings and they dance.)
Obama's 22 White House czars. That's really stupid. As well as a violation of the Constitution. But it's a Chinese laugh line. It's so obviously wrong and power-mad that it's not worth debating.
Legalizing drugs. That's really stupid.
Obama's power-grab over the medical sector of the economy? It's profoundly stupid. We can insure all the uninsured people in the country for a tiny fraction of all that money. We just need to fix the tire on our national car, and this guy tries to sell us a brand-new O-mobile, it can practically fly off the lot, all on credit, long-term payments, no money down. It's gonna be free! So what if you have to mortgage your wife and children? Even if we already have two national lemons in our garage, Medicare and Medicaid, which nobody likes. Now Obee is trying to sell us on a really, really expensive dream mobile that will fix our problems forever, plus it'll be cheaper than what we have now!
Can you believe it?
That sales pitch only works for idiots.
The rise to power and fame of the real lowbrows explains a lot. It even points to an answer of sorts. Because we've all been intimidated by the Cult of Nice not to contradict anybody who comes out with a really stupid, destructive idea. We can no longer call a really stupid idea what it is. I know that I censor myself all the time. We have been taught to keep our mouths shut when a word in time might make a real difference. We have allowed the national conversation to be dumbed down.
Here's my resolution for July Fourth: From now on I'm going to call idiocy idiotic. Not nastily, but as clearly as I can. It is high time for normal, intelligent common sense to become acceptable again. I'm happy to have a respectful argument with anyone who disagrees with me. But I'm going to start saying the magic words:
That's really dumb! That's really ignorant! You haven't thought about that much, have you? Have you ever considered another side of that batty idea?
I promise to be nice.
But honest.
Pass the word.
If we all start doing it we can change the world.
90 Comments on "When did the lowbrows take over the culture?"

Obama, the African Colonial

June 25, 2009
americanthinker.com
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.

The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
......
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.

VDH: What Do These First Six Months Mean?

"Recollections on a New Age Begun" 6/25/09 - Victor Davis Hanson: It's all in the way you look a things. How should we understand post-campaign-rhetoric Obama?
...
"
Thoughts on America and Iran" 6/24/09 - Victor Davis Hanson: Wasn't Obama going to be the moral administration? His response to Iran's crisis seems like the same old story, with Bush the only exception.
...
June 25, 2009
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
victorhanson.com
Pajamas Media
Where Are We Going?
...
Abroad:
I think the Europeans, who, remember, caught Obamania quite early, thought they were going to get more of the bipartisan American security shield, albeit with a charismatic multicultural veneer that would resonate with their citizens: no more Texas. No more Christianity. No more twang. No more nuculear. No more Iraq. But same old NATO. Same old bad cop to their good cop. Same old wide open Ami economy. Same old chance for triangulation. And?
As we are seeing in the Middle East, in the case of Israel, with Turkey, on the recent Iranian upheaval, and during the South America visit, Obama is clearly to the left of Europe. He sees himself more as multicultural prophet born out of the Third World, foe of colonialism, angry at past imperialism, skeptical of capitalism, eager to showcase his non-traditional ancestry and tripartite nomenclature. By coming from the West, but separating himself from the history of his own country, Obama has become a citizen of the world, who polls far higher, as intended, in the Middle East, than does his own country.
At no point does he suggest that the fact his father left Kenya for the U.S. and fathered at least one son who would grow up American rather than Kenyan was a great gift, as we see with the ordeal of many of the Obama half-siblings in Africa. Yes, he talks about change in America, but never tells the world exactly how an America of many races and faiths never descends into the hatred and violence we see most elsewhere in diverse societies. How, after all, does one apologize for success? (”I am sorry we are not killing as in the Balkans; so sad we do not follow the Rwandan model; schucks, no Kurd-Shiite-Sunni troubles here.”)
It used to be cute to talk about how “Bush turned off the Europeans.” Perhaps. But beneath all the public demonstrations and burning effigies, the old guard knew that Bush, like Clinton, Bush, and Reagan (but not Carter), would be there should the Russians, Koreans, Chinese, the lunatic regimes in the Middle East, the al Qaedists and the rest threaten Western interests.
I don’t see how they can assume such a thing any more.
From the trivial like the treatment of the Churchill bust or the DVD gift to Gordon Brown, to the profound like the serial apologies, voting present on Iran, and deer-in-the-headlights stance on Korea, they must assume that the “European Rapid Deployment Force” is now their primary bulwark against the foes of civilization.
Bottom line: “Be careful what you wish for.”
It is neither caricature nor reductionism to suggest that the degree to which a country has expressed past hostility to the United States, the more it wins attention and apology from Barack Obama. In contrast, to the degree a country is constitutional and pro-American, the more likely it will be either ignored by Obama or its internal affairs “meddled” with. Cf. the case with Iran, Venezuela, the West Bankers, Russia, etc. In contrast, woe to Israel! (And Iraq too).
Weird Iranian Politics
There is a certain difficulty, unease really, that one sees among Leftist and liberal commentators on Iran. The demonstrations in Tehran are ideal topics of liberal anguish: hundreds of thousands in the streets, women, gays, students, all calling for freedom, human rights, and non-violent change — and opposed by religious fundamentalists, the gun-toting army, creepy police. It should be a no-brainer.
But there is often silence. Why and how?
1) Obama is President. U.S. official policy is now liberal official policy, and there is a certain party line to embrace (we forget how right-wing radio went after Bush for the Dubai ports deal, the steel tariff, open borders, the deficits, No Child Left Behind, Prescription drug, etc.).
That means the President’s heretofore Kissingerian realism — wait until one side wins, and then deal with the winner in terms of our own interest — gets a pass. Suddenly liberals, who called for the overthrow of everyone from the odious Pinochet to the even worse Somoza, are silent, offering Obama sound enough talking points that we must not play into the hands of this or that side, that both sides have anti-Americanism in common, that the bomb lurks large. Their realism may be clever and in the long run astute for the U.S., but it is realism nonetheless, and just the sort of realpolitik that they used to decry.
2) The Iranian fascistic government — theocratic, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, anti-feminist — has always disguised its venom with Che-like popular anti-Americanism. Its theocrats don’t wear ties. They mouth Hollywood-like anti-Americanism. They hate Bush as much as the Left does. In other words, the Iranians (cf. again Clinton’s lunatic 2005 Davos remarks praising to the skies Iranian “democracy”) have always been given a sort of exemption given their Third-world fides, and refrain “we are the perpetual victims of a CIA-inspired coup over six decades ago.” (Kermit Roosevelt did not prevent democracy in Iran from 1979 to 2009 any more than Pearl Harbor forced the United States to spend a lot on defense the next 60 plus years).
3) Iraq looms large. The Iraqi elections were far more open, far more inspected than anything in the long history of Iran. Maliki is a more legitimate leader than any in Iraq. And yet we shun Maliki as tainted, while suggesting that Iranian thugs are somehow more authentic (note the large number of essays suddenly appearing arguing Ahmadinejad really won the election and the result should be respected.)
Here at Home
We know the boilerplate: The President outlines the problem, punctuated with those awful “them” and “they” and “some” and “others” who as extremists stand in the way of all good things and present “false choices,” but remain unnamed. (Sort of like the tropes in 1984).
Then the standard references come to “the mess we inherited,” the “prior administration,” and “what we found.” These are the prefaces to his reluctance to … (fill in the blanks: run the private sector, spend massive amounts of money, take over health care, raise taxes, etc.). Then he pauses, takes a deep breath, and in fact outlines ways to take over GM, regulate compensation, run up massive deficits, nationalize health care, and plan record tax hikes.
Then he finishes with variations on the old campaign formula “this is the moment,” “hope and change,” “yes, we can,” “we will not be deterred.”
No one can quite believe that one has just heard Obama deny that he’s going to do exactly what he then outlines he is going to do — but at least for the last six months this deception sounded good.
Historically Challenged?
In a recent column I suggested that almost all Obama’s historical references were wrong or distorted: Berlin airlift, death camps, Inquisition, Muslim contribution to the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, Muslim discoveries of breakthroughs in science, math, printing, etc., suggesting that as a postmodernist he (and/or his speechwriters) does not really believe in absolute truth, but rather relative competing narratives predicated on race/class/gender. And the means of magnifying the accomplishments of those “without power” justifies the ends of diminishing those “with power.” The list of other inaccuracies in his Cairo speech could be expanded from the contemporary Middle East to his references to John Adams and Islam.
Apparently that list of inaccuracies brought the following dismissal (but not corrections or interest in correcting the record) from Robert Gibbs:
WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE
Who’s Victor Davis Hanson and what does he know?
President’s spokesman puts money on Obama speechwriters

(Posted: June 16, 2009, 9:48 pm Eastern, © 2009 WorldNetDaily)
Robert Gibbs, the spokesman for President Barack Obama, today questioned who is [1] Victor Davis Hanson and what does he know, when WND correspondent Les Kinsolving asked Gibbs about “mistakes” Hanson has pointed out in Obama’s speeches.
Hanson, a nationally syndicated columnist and historian, wrote just one day earlier about “Our Historically Challenged President.”
He noted Obama’s reference during the presidential campaign to when his great-uncle “helped liberate Auschwitz, and that his grandfather knew fellow American troops that had entered Auschwitz and Treblinka.”
“Both are impossible. The Americans didn’t free either Nazi death camp,” Hanson said.
Then came Obama’s gaffe during his Victory Column speech in [2] Berlin in 2008.
“He began, ‘I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.’ He apparently forgot that for the prior eight years, the official faces of American foreign policy in [2] Germany were Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza [2] Rice — both African-Americans,” Hanson said.
Hanson continued, citing Obama’s reference to the Berlin airlift, when the “world had come together to save Berlin.”
Only, Hanson pointed out, the fact is that “it was almost an entirely American and British effort — written off by most observers as hopeless and joined only by a handful of Western allies.”
Then in Cairo recently, Obama’s historical allusions “were even more suspect.”
“Almost every one of his references was either misleading or incomplete. He suggested that today’s Middle East tension was fed by the legacy of European colonialism and the Cold War that had reduced nations to proxies,” Hanson said. “But the great colonizers of the Middle East were the Ottoman Muslims, who for centuries ruled with an iron fist. The 20th-century movements of Baathism, Pan-Arabism and Nasserism — largely homegrown totalitarian ideologies — did far more damage over the last half-century to the Middle East than the legacy of European colonialism.
“Obama also claimed that ‘Islam . . . carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,’” In fact, Hanson wrote, medieval Islamic culture “had little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values.”
“Obama also insisted that ‘Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of [2] Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.’ Yet the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478; by then Cordoba had long been re-conquered by Spanish Christians, and was governed as a staunchly Christian city,” he said.
And to Obama’s claim that it was “not violence” that ended slavery, Hanson mentioned the Civil War.
In today’s news briefing, Kinsolving asked, “Historian Victor Davis Hanson cites what he terms, ‘The president’s politically correct canard that the Renaissance was fueled by Arab learning, and the president’s statement that abolition of slavery and civil rights in the U.S. were accomplished without violence,’ as two of seven presidential errors. Question: Does the White [2] House believe Dr. Hanson is wrong? Or do you believe your speechwriters and the president made some mistakes?”
Said Gibbs, “Lester, I have to hand it to you that you have in only one question covered some five or six centuries of world history.”
“No. No. Just mistakes … White House mistakes,” said Kinsolving.
“Well I … Should I ask you a question and you respond, or should I give a…,” Gibbs said.
“I’d be delighted anytime,” Kinsolving said.
“At least you’re not leading into where you think the answer to such a historically significant and important question,” Gibbs said. “I’m not familiar with the [2] work of the esteemed historian. I haven’t seen it. I can assure you that not knowing who this historian is, I’ll put my money on our speechwriters.”
At the Washington Times, which publishes Hanson, editorial page editor Richard Miniter told Kinsolving: “To Mr. Gibbs: If you are in need of information about those in positions of higher learning, please write us.”
Oh well….
European Outtakes
Some ironies on the recent European trip.
At a beautiful winery in Frascati the host was explaining that the quite stunning vineyard we were standing in was “organic” and farmed “without poisons and chemicals” — but our group was, in fact, at that moment standing between vineyard berms, with their tall weeds shriveled up and dead, obviously sprayed with Parquat.
A crowd of some very obese (as in mega) Germans was walking ahead of us on the sidewalk in Rome, and a passerby snickered to me “Fatso Americans.”
The inability to line up orderly, the run-’em down driving that puts pedestrians in constant risk, and the smoke anywhere assumptions all reflect a certain degree of selfishness at odds with the utopian E.U. claims of fraternity and egalitarianism. Or are the two naturally symbiotic rather than antithetical?
Letters and Posts
I don’t moderate any posting. If they are filtered, it is done by those at Pajamasmedia.com on the basis of obscenity or hate speech. Some replies to some commentary:
Yes, I would prefer real names to faux-ones on the postings. But it’s your call.
No, I have never attacked any politician’s children. And won’t. I liked Chelsea Clinton, never wrote a word disparaging her, not one. If one can find an attack I wrote on her, please post it. Any on the right who ridiculed her looks were wrong to do so. I found her effective in the recent Hillary campaign. When politicians’ children begin giving campaign speeches and entering the arena, their views are fair game. But that was not true with the Palin children, and Chelsea’s views (only) were legitimately questioned, but not her looks. (I remember that the Bush children were both apolitical and yet constant sources of jokes and ridicule by the press in a way the Kerry and Gore and Biden children were not and should not have been.)
Yes, I thought Letterman’s serial apologies were pathetic. They are all offered with snickers, and his sarcastic/nihilist trademark. He wants this to go on to boost ratings, and, as a narcissist, enjoys it since it is about him. But he hasn’t simply, honesty, briefly, clearly said “I’m sorry first, to the flight attendants, second to Governor, third to the Palin daughters, fourth to Mr. Rodriguez. I have no excuse for my outrageous comments, and they won’t happen again.” Instead, we get skits about the apologies, and more “they’re mean to poor me outside my studio” segments.
No, I don’t care if “trolls” come to this site, or if they are directed to by political operatives. Free speech trumps all. Nothing they can post matches the daily venom that I get on my personal email. The arena is open to all, the only rule being proper language and decorum.
Yes, the content of the postings is remarkably perceptive and learned — and I’m honored you come here.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

REPORT ON IRANIAN BRUTALITY

The little president who wasn't there

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little president who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away
...
...
June 24, 2009
The White House is now occupied by a little president who just isn't there when he is called upon to take a clear, moral stand. For such sheer gutless flabbiness and evasion, you have to look back to the dismal Jimmy Carter years. If Tehran seems quieter today, it's because the civilian demonstrators have been identified and are being beaten and tortured and maybe killed in Evin Prison. Don't believe for a moment that the sadistic regime has changed, just because you don't see people bleeding on the streets. They are bleeding all right. It's just out of public view.
The Europeans are being Reaganesque. Angela Merkel is morally serious. She stated officially that
"Germany stands on the side of the people in Iran who want to exercise their right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly."
There. That wasn't so hard, was it? Ronald Reagan would have said it. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair would have said it. Barack Obama couldn't.
Nicolas Sarkozy upheld our real values. He called the pictures of women and teenagers being beated by Basij thugs on motorcycles "brutal" and "totally disproportionate."
"The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."
Barack Obama loves to preen and parade his "higher" morality. But when it comes to Iranians struggling against ugly tyranny or the people of North Korean just trying to fill their bellies with food, our little president just isn't there. Nowhere to be found. Chances are that behind the scenes the mullahs are promising Obama a glorious peace agreement that will allow him to parade his gargantuan ego around the world one more time. They are Persian rug sellers over there, who know all about hard bargaining. They've got his number: He's a pushover. Obama will trade personal glory against the freedom of Iran's people any day of the week.
So the most moralistic president since Jimmy is also a moral coward. Not surprising, is it? Moralizing is just another way of propping up one's ego. Morality is making the tough choices when life presents us with a clear choice between good and evil.
Obama has never stuck his neck out except to make a play for some constituency -- like the late-term abortion fanatics. As a result the United States is now standing with Vladimir Putin, who routinely assassinates opposition journalists, rather than with our real values.
As Ralph Peters pointed out a few weeks ago, Obama is a Third World socialist circa 1979, when his ideas jelled and crystallized. He's never bothered to change his basic outlook since then.
The Soviet Union crumbled because its own people got sick and tired of its system of apparatchik privileges, it's venal corruption, and its boastful propaganda. Yes, Reagan and Thatcher and Pope Paul II united in a making the moral case. The Helsinki Agreement forced the Soviets to account for their abuses in public. All that helped to create psychological pressure that turned out to be irresistible -- because internally, the children of the power class secretly agreed on the same values. When Ronald Reagan called it an Evil Empire they knew in their hearts he was right. Internal self-doubt and external moral pressure combined to bring down the rotten regime.
Obama isn't looking for that. He mainly wants to be celebrated as Mr. Peace and Love. Vainglory is the driving force of his character. When he is presented with an historic opportunity of college students on the streets of Tehran and other cities, fighting storm troopers with their bodies and moral force alone, he totally flubs the chance. Obama doesn't stand for anything.
When Martin Luther King was risking his life taking a dangerous moral stand in the South, a lot of people kept their heads down. Since the Civil Rights revolution those people have suddenly discovered their outrage at the injustices of Jim Crow, and some of them are making a good living off them. Question: Would Barack Obama have been marching with Dr. King during the hard days when it looked like he would lose? Would Obama have chosen the hard work and danger for the greater good? Would Obama have gone to jail and risked Bull Connor's dogs and axe handles to assert basic human rghts in the segregated South in the 1950s? Or would he be nowhere to be found?
The answer seems all too clear.

The regulation of essential elements of life

The EPA is now considering designating CO2 a dangerous pollutant. The regulation of essential elements of life by our government scares me.
For the record, I wish it stated emphatically, carbon dioxide is just as essential to life as water and oxygen. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than oxygen or water.
...
Lonnie E. Schubert
6.24.09
The EPA is now considering designating CO2 a dangerous pollutant. The regulation of essential elements of life by our government scares me. It should scare us all. I am devastated by the notion that our own government founded on freedom would regulate and control the most fundamental aspects of life on earth. Regulation on life's important things is certainly tyranny and certainly will destroy the world, at least the nation and supposed freedom, we leave to our children.
Please, do not regulate the essential elements of life. Freedom is too precious to take it away in such pointless ways.
Carbon dioxide is one of the three essential elements of life on our planet. Despite being arguably THE essential requirement for life, water, sometimes called dihydrogen monoxide, is extremely dangerous, killing even children every year. How much is destroyed every year by floods and rot? Water is by far the most important energy absorbing gas in our atmosphere. Without gaseous water in our air, our earth would be far too cold to support us. The other gasses that absorb energy contribute less than one-fifth of the total effect we refer to as the greenhouse effect. In short, we generally have too much water where we don't need it and too little where we do. Are you planning to regulate water also? The potential gains are obvious. If we can reduce water waste and control it in the environment, we can eliminate most of the dangers associated with water.
Likewise, oxygen. This life-essential element is extremely dangerous. Not only can it kill directly, becoming toxic as the partial pressure exceeds 0.3, it kills and destroys by chemically combining with metal and organic material, that is, by oxidation, referred to as corrosion and burning respectively. How many people die each year in fires? How many in structural failures caused by corrosion? Already considering the deaths, dollars hardly seem noteworthy, but the costs of damage caused by oxygen is staggering.
Frankly, if we are going to regulate an essential element of life, oxygen would be my first choice, because I at least know that I can avoid producing it and releasing it into the environment.
If we regulate carbon dioxide or water, we will all be subject to the regulations because we cannot avoid producing both and releasing them into the environment. Me and my children, and yours too, will become polluters as we simply live and respire. I cannot comprehend it. How can one possibly be subject to law and penalty simply by breathing? Regulating carbon dioxide would necessarily regulate breathing. I cannot breathe without expelling this life-giving chemical. Life on our planet cannot exist without it.
For the record, I wish it stated emphatically, carbon dioxide is just as essential to life as water and oxygen. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than oxygen or water.
It is not possible to argue that any of these chemicals can be regulated by government bureaucracy and legislation to any good effect. It simply is not possible. Again, carbon dioxide is the basis of the energy cycle for life. Without sufficient carbon dioxide plants stop photosynthesis. Without plants, the whole chain breaks down, and we all die. We must not do this to our children. (And yes, it is what you are ultimately trying to do if you try to stop or tax or penalize the production of carbon dioxide.)
Again, I point out that all of us respire carbon dioxide simply by living. Note that we respire based on our activity level and our mass. First consider mass, please. We consume energy on a per pound basis. A 200 pound person exhales twice as much carbon dioxide as a 100 pound person. Considering that several people have exceeded 1000 pounds in recent decades, are we going to tax weight under carbon dioxide limit rules? It seems fair, but it is also tyrannical. Of course, one might spend hours per day burning the food calories to keep off the weight. Obviously the strenuous exercise generates much more carbon dioxide than sedentary pursuits. Is the plan to tax time at the gym as well? Perhaps we can pay subsidies for people who elect to shun motorized transport and walk or pedal to work. Of course, most people could not be coerced to walk or bicycle to work. The time and restrictions are far too great a cost to make up for all but the threat of physical punishment. Even more, perhaps essentially all, could not be persuaded in any way to brave the elements on foot or on a bicycle.
I wonder that some will think my thoughts extreme, but it has already been suggested. The UK's Sun environmental editor Ben Jackson on 21 April 2009 suggested that fatties must reduce to halt global warming. It is false, of course, but if carbon dioxide is presumed to cause catastrophe, then fatties are as much to blame as SUVs and coal fired power plants!
Now to the direct point of carbon dioxide causing catastrophe. How can anyone be so dumb? Al Gore was born that way, but what about you, my dear reader? You were not born so dumb. Just ask your mother. You know from your everyday life that warmer is better than colder. Check the deaths in winter versus summer. Far more people die from trauma directly attributable to cold versus heat. Yes, the heat waves cause deaths too, but most are simply an unlucky slight push to those ready to pass on of natural causes anyway. The medical statistics are clear. Cold kills. Heat, for the most part, only kills the careless.
I assert boldly that global warming is a good thing. First, it simply cannot get much warmer on a water filled planet. Recall your freshman and sophomore physics classes. This is simple. You know it yourself. You need no prophet of doom to tell you. It is within your own experience, at least if you have ever lived in the central US or in the tropics. The consistency of the tropics is mostly due to the water. The variability and extremes of the central US is due to the lack thereof. Water moderates, and on this blue marble it will simply generate more clouds and thunderstorms in response to higher energy availability, and consume the extra energy in more rapid buildup and precipitation and overall circulation rather than increased temperature. Of course, in some centuries future, the cycle will overwhelm itself, and we will slide into the next glaciation, killing most of our decedents unless their technological advances can generate more power than they will need to live on the ice covered earth.
Returning to the carbon dioxide, do you simply not understand the simple physics of radiative absorption? The atmosphere is nearly transparent to the incoming solar radiation, allowing the photons to warm the earth's surface. The warmed surface in turn radiates back toward space at infrared frequencies, many of which are absorbed by gaseous water molecules and carbon dioxide. When a photon of the specific wavelength absorbable by the molecule strikes it, the molecule absorbs the energy and warms. That molecule will then cool by emitting a new photon at a wavelength consistent with its temperature and its surroundings. In general, the wavelength emitted will not be prone to absorption by another molecule. Accordingly, roughly half of the energy of such captured photons will be reradiated on out to space and lost from the earth forever. The other half will find their way back to the surface, accounting for what we refer to as the greenhouse effect.
Note that more carbon dioxide does not actually trap more energy because the atmosphere is already opaque to the absorbed frequencies. Ask any astronomer or anyone whose business uses infrared sensors. There are rather short limits in distance for observations in the infrared spectrum because the atmosphere absorbs too much due to the presence of water molecules and carbon dioxide molecules.
Please, the simple fact is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is roughly in equilibrium with carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide concentration will necessarily rise in the atmosphere as the average ocean temperature rises. To ensure I am clear, global warming causes a rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. The causation is the same in the laboratory. Again, think back to your freshman and sophomore physics labs. Carbon dioxide comes out of the carbonated beverage as it warms. If it is kept chilled, it retains much more of its carbonation. Solubility is inversely proportional to temperature for carbon dioxide in water. Colder oceans absorb more carbon dioxide removing it from the atmosphere. Warmer oceans will not hold the carbon dioxide, and atmospheric concentrations go up.
Perhaps it is nonintuitive that all of our fossil fuels came from carbon dioxide that was once in the air and was subsequently converted to biological material through photosynthesis. Our fossil fuels are simply carbon dioxide concentrated by solar energy and earth forces so we can easily use it now. It is simply unreasonable to suppose it to be catastrophic to place this carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came.
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
I have made my case simply. The overall situation is complex, but many of the principals and truths are very simple, so simple we teach them to teenagers before we expect them to be mature. Is it not obvious that Al Gore is simply paying the bills with his hyped doom saying? Perhaps the same cannot be said for Hanson, but I suggest he is simply insane. No sane person can believe all the contradictory nonsense he has spouted over the years.
Still, the AGW machine is self-feeding. Our peer review is in a sorry state. We will soon enough see that the earth goes on as it always has. Mother Nature is not mad at us. In fact she doesn't care in the least. When that big rock out there finally meanders into our orbital path, Mother Nature will take no note at all. The earth, and every other creature on it, cares nothing for the 99.9% of all species that are already extinct, nor will it care when that rock wipes out 99% of life on the planet then.
Americans have so many problems simply because they have no real problems. Please do not be part of the ultimate problem of destroying our freedoms and taxing us to death.
Do none of us realize that our air and our waters are cleaner this year than last? In fact, this is true since 1970 when the EPA began the records. Our regulations have far and again achieved their goals. We are now going beyond the useful, and we are expending effort and wasting energy pushing "clean" and "green" beyond reason. Our returns per unit expenditure are diminishing. We will soon be (probably already are) consuming our children to save our grandchildren, and if the cycle is not stopped, there will be no children to save.
Isn't it already obvious that the certain results of the proposed cure are worse than the purported results of the presumed and exaggerated disease? Overall warming of earth is good. Most species will adapt. More species will evolve than will go extinct. That is the way of the world. That is what nature does. Overall increases in carbon dioxide concentrations will ONLY increase plants, which will feed more insects and animals, and we will all be better off. Rising oceans are a boogieman. Even if they do, can people not move? Won't it be cheaper to wholesale move low-lying cities than to destroy our energy infrastructure for unproven and uneconomical schemes?
Know that those who will stifle energy production, be it even coal and nuclear energy, will be guilty of the blood of many innocent souls. Without the necessary power, our people will die in their beds of cold. They will die in our hospitals as blackouts leave our medical technology useless. Our children will die because we cannot get them food because our trucks and trains rust idle, without fuel.
There are no energy solutions. We simply must continue to invent and devise more efficient uses for what we already know. We must burn our coal for electrical generation. We must burn our natural gas in our homes and factories for direct heat, and we must use oil for our portable liquid fuels to keep transport running efficiently.
Note that while we have cleaned our air and waters every year since 1970, (again citing EPA statistics) we have also grown by over 200% in our industry, while our energy usage has hardly exceeded our population growth. How can this be? We seem to be only using more energy for more people, not for the more and more product we produce. It is because of efficiency gains. We do not make industry more efficient to meet some bureaucrat's arbitrary regulation. We increase efficiency to be more competitive, to drive down cost of operation and production. The free market works. Government does not.
The most inefficient way to do anything is with a bureaucratic government. Such a government is well and good when inefficiency can be counted on to guard against rashness as with legislation and the military. But inefficiency in general kills. It kills productivity, and it kills people, our people, our children.
Windmills are wonderful, but they are inefficient and still too uneconomical to be competitive in most applications. We are stealing from our future generations to drive this technology now before it can find its own way and prove itself on its own merit. Likewise biofuels. Burning our food for transportation fuel must be the most suicidal activity ever undertaken by the human race.
While I could include tomes explaining why the science is not settled, since we know so little about climate. I will conclude. Geosciences have no doubt about the role of temperature in earth history, and geosciences establish that earth is currently cold compared to its average temperature over the last two billion years or so. Still, it is by no means certain what will happen next, but I am certain that warmer is better than colder, and carbon dioxide, the life-giving molecule and essential ingredient to life, is in no way dangerous to human kind or any other creature on this earth.
I implore you to consider the children. Forcing energy policy through taxation and criminal penalty against what market forces dictate robs from our progeny and will constrict them to fewer options. We must build more power plants. We must use coal, and we must use nuclear fission. We must. The blood of the innocents will be on our hands if we do not provide enough power generation for them. Most of the world simply cannot be a tropical paradise, and even those few are being threatened by accidental exposure to foreign species.
Again, again, you will kill our children if you try to stop carbon dioxide production. Not only figuratively, but literally. Carbon dioxide taxes will hurt us all. Refusing food to a 1000 pound man may have its justifications, but it is still tyranny.
Ultimately, pain tends to be the only true persuader. Please, foresee the pain taxation and regulation on carbon dioxide will cause. See it now, so that we don't all have to pay the price and endure the real pain it will cause when we watch our children die in the freezing, dark operating room. Winter will never cease. It will still kill us when we cannot warm ourselves. We will still starve when we cannot transport our crops and livestock to where we need to eat.
We have sufficient fossil fuel for more than 100 years. We have nuclear fission for centuries. We will continue to invent and innovate and increase efficiencies. It is simply the way we are, the way we compete, the way we get ahead, the way we make our way in the world. Do not force what cannot be done. There is no controlling the elements of life unless we kill all the living. Isn't the point to save the living? Let us remember Hypocrites, "First, do no harm." We know turning off the power will do harm. We must acknowledge that trying to stop carbon dioxide will do more harm than any reasonable worst case scenario of increasing carbon dioxide.
Save our children. Never try to stop carbon dioxide through government fiat and heavy handed bureaucracy. Government stepping beyond its basic essentials always harms more than it helps. Government can never be efficient. It is not in its nature. The scorpion stings because it is a scorpion. Government oppresses because it is the governing power. Our founding father tried to control the beast, and it can probably not be done better, so do not thwart the controls. The controls are to be on the government, not we the people.
Reduce the EPA, not carbon dioxide. In the end, that will save our children.
Lonnie E. Schubert holds a BS, Metallurgical Engineering, and MS, Nuclear Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla.

Monday, June 22, 2009

13 Home-Videos From Iran




QUOTE OF THE DAY

The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society.

In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez.

Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).

Andy McCarthy, Understanding Obama on Iran

Friday, June 19, 2009

QUOTE OF THE DAY

No ideology or nation can reform without criticism. To pander to Islam is to strenghten its worst qualities, to affirm its superiority, its righteousness and its appetite for world domination. By contrast only challenging Islamic supremacism holds out any form of reforming Islam.

The only thing that DOES make sense these days...

... the non-stop fawning attention to the Muslim world since his inauguration represents something deeper...
...
June 19, 2009
Explaining Obama: Our First Islamist President?
By Richard Baehr
One might think that Barack Obama's obsession with Jewish settlements in the West Bank would wane a bit, given the events in Iran. But to think this would be wrong.

Dick-tator

READ IT ALL!
...
Obama’s regulatory “reform” plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed.
According to an
Associated Press report today, Democratic leaders have committed to enacting the plan before the end of the year and Republicans in both the House and Senate have indicated that they won’t stand in the way of the overhaul.
“The final plan….is expected to sidestep most jurisdictional disputes and simply impose across the board standards to be applied by all financial regulators, according to administration and industry sources, ” reports the
Washington Times.
In other words, the Fed, which is already totally unaccountable to Congress, is to be placed in complete control of the entirety of the U.S. financial system, to do as it wishes without repercussion.
As the
LA Times reports, the government, in conjunction with the private Federal Reserve, would effectively have the clout to simply seize and take over any company it desires...
... the Obama administration has agreed to create a “watchdog” council of regulators to “advise the Fed”.
However, as former chairman
Alan Greenspan has most recently pointed out, given that the Fed is an independent entity, and therefore accountable to no one, it will have the power to simply reject and overrule any advice it is offered.
...

Obama's quest for role as global messiah - not American president.

... our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.
And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post



So it is a one-way street with Iran, and it’s better to be damned for voicing criticism than for being afraid to voice criticism...
The Iranian theocrats are realists par excellence; they do not give a damn about ideals or morality, and will deal with us in the future on their perception of their own self-interest...
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review
President Obama abandoned Wilsonianism just in time to avoid supporting Iranian democracy.

Behold! Obama Will Part The Sea!

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
"We have figured out how to balance residential, industrial and recreational uses on land, but today's announcement supports a vision that we can figure out a way to accomplish this in the ocean as well," Sally Yozell of the Nature Conservancy.
You can find the memo on the White House website here.
And you can find the Nature Conservancy's statement here.
...
...