Princess Obama Derangement Syndrome

 

 I LOVE THE BRITS!

 

From the Spectator (UK)

FRIDAY, 13TH JUNE 2008

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/771896/princess-obama-derangement-syndrome.thtml

 

My oh my, what a firestorm I appear to have started with my remarks two days ago on Obama’s background! It was wholly expected, of course, but nevertheless the posters’ comments are sorevealing. They graphically illustrate the way in which Obamania has quite obviously destroyed the capacity for reason.

First, it is quite clear that any questioning at all of Obama’s background is entirely off-limits. Next, the posters fail totally to grasp that the real point isn’t what faith he professed or was brought up in as a child – it is the fact that he has not told the truth about his early background. Then, some even compare such questioning with the ‘truthers’ who allege that 9/11 was perpetrated by a conspiracy between America and Israel. They thus demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between rationality and lunacy, evidence and fantasy, failing to grasp that the sole reason for the questions about Obama is the many discrepancies in the accounts of his early life — including his own accounts — plus his many questionable associations.

Ignoring all this substantive evidence and the legitimate questions to which it gives rise (can you imagine how they would be slavering about all this were Obama a Republican candidate??) they instead hurl insults at both me and my sources such as Daniel Pipes – a fine and authoritative scholar (and who has also exposed those who claim he has peddled falsehoods as themselves peddling falsehoods) whose own observations about Obama’s background are clearly and reliably sourced and are couched in Pipes’s characteristically cautious manner — and then annouce that they have won the argument hands-down!

Oh dear. America really does have a problem here. Looks like what I wrote months ago, that the Obama phenomenon might mean the Americans too are succumbing to Princess Diana Derangement Syndrome, was a serious understatement.

To address a few specific points which have come up and which are not merely hysterical abuse. First, it’s been pointed out that Robert Spencer has said Islam does not mandate the death sentence for children who become apostates, a point subsequently acknowledged by Daniel Pipes. I don’t see, however, that this alters anything. The death sentence is mandated for adults who renounce Islam. The fact that all that is known about Obama’s Muslim roots relates – as I wrote — to his early childhood is irrelevant. For as Spencer also notes, the real question is therefore when Obama converted to Christianity. By his own account, he did so when he was received by Pastor Wright into the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago some twenty years ago (although at other times he has also said he was ‘always a Christian’). In which case Pipes’s argument remains absolutely salient.

As for the ‘Islamic experts’ who poured cold water on a similar argument byEdward Luttwak in the New York Times — who are hailed as Voices of Absolute Truth by my more excitable commenters despite the fact that they know zilch about them — these prove nothing other than the existence of commentators who sanitise Islam.

Those who still insist that Obama was never brought up as a Muslim ignore the numerous reports of his Islamic education as a young child — including his own statements, as in this deeply respectful article in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof:

He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them. Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’

Next, the assertion that Obama and Raila Odinga are not cousins – by a poster who says he is a Kenyan and therefore knows about such things. Well, one might think that Raila Odinga himself might have a rather better claim to know. This is what the Telegraph reported:

Kenya’s defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country’s post-election violence. Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator’s father, from western Kenya’s Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle… Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader’s claim to be a relative.

As I have already said — but let me repeat very slowly for those suffering from Princess Obama Derangement Syndrome – the concerns about Obama’s Muslim antecedents arise from the fact that a) he has tried to conceal them and b) that he has a puzzling number of indirect connections with radical Islamists or their supporters.

1) He has gone out of his way to support in Kenya Raila Odinga, head of the Luo tribe, who promised to introduce sharia law if elected. Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaign to speak by phone with Odinga. As the Investor’s Business Daily has reported, his half-brother Abongo ‘Roy’ Obama is a Luo activist in Kenya and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must ‘liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture’ and urges Barack to embrace his African Muslim heritage.

Barack Obama has said he disagrees with his brother. But as the IBD has also reported:

In 1991, when Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he pledged allegiance to something called the Black Value System, which is a code of non-Biblical ethics written by blacks, for blacks. It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media’s portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races. The code also warns blacks to avoid the white ‘entrapment of black middle-classness,’ suggesting that settling for that kind of ‘competitive’ success will rob blacks of their African identity and keep them ‘captive’ to white culture.

2) His mentor, the black power-supporting Christian pastor Jeremiah Wright, is a close associate of Louis Farrakhan, the demagogue leader of the black power, Jew-hating militant organisation Nation of Islam. A number of Obama’s own staffers have been members of the Nation of Islam.

3) Tony Rezko, who was recently convicted of fraud, money laundering and bribery conspiracy, has been a major supporter of Obama and contributor to his cause – the full extent of which Obama tried to conceal. The Chicago Sun-Times reported:

During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found. Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

He also did a land deal with Rezko in 2005, buying land from him to enlarge his own adjoining house at what has been reported to be a discount — a transaction Obama has subsequently called ‘bone-headed’. In a further twist, as the Timesreported earlier this year, a British-Iraqi billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who is said to have had connections with Saddam Hussein and who was convicted for corruption in France, lent millions of dollars to Rezko just weeks before that ‘bone-headed’ land deal.

But what has received far less attention is Rezko’s connections with the Nation of Islam. Reszko, born in Syria, was a business associate of Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad, serving as a vice president and general manager of JHM’s firm Crucial Inc. And finally, Rezko was bailed from jail by Ali Baghdadi, the ‘Middle East adviser’ to the Nation of Islam.

Who know what all this adds up to? But isn’t it rather important that someone finds out before November?

To repeat once again for sufferers from PODS: the issue is NOT Obama’s religion, now or in the past. It is the many questions which need to be answered about a) why he has sought to conceal his early background; b) why he has so many indirect associations with radical Islamism; and c) whether these two questions are in some way related.

Anyone who doesn’t think all this cries out for proper investigation is either a fool or a knave.

 

 


Dismal Scientists and the Folks that Use and Abuse Them

Today I will go into something  of which I can speak from authority.  As a dismal scientist myself, I’ll try to give you some insight into Obama’s dismal scientists starting with a brief introduction to them on this post. These are the guys that will most likely put together his economic plan.  Every time I’ve been pointed to his site for specifics by eager young Obamamites, I’ve found the usual platitudes and no details that are characteristic of his hopie-changie speeches spoke from teleprompters.  They typify the specifics-challenged Senator Obama.

From this week’s The Economist ( a great publication from the UK):

“On domestic matters, Mr Obama has assembled a team of sharp academic economists who premise their work on his supposed ability to sell sophisticated policy. Most prominent up until now has been Austan Goolsbee … a University of Chicago professor whom many expect to head a President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mr Goolsbee’s record suggests neither the hostility towards globalised capitalism nor the desire for large-scale redistribution that conservatives, spooked by tales of Mr Obama’s left-wing voting record, might fear: Mr Goolsbee is a problem-solver who favours such unsexy proposals as altering American tax forms. He got into trouble earlier this year for telling the Canadians not to worry too much about the anti-NAFTA rhetoric the candidate was emitting on the campaign trail.

“From Harvard Mr Obama plucked Jeffrey Liebman, who has produced good research on the earned-income tax credit and its role in moving people from welfare to work, and David Cutler, a health economist who wants doctors’ pay tied to medical outcomes. As of this week, though, Mr Obama’s newly appointed economics director is Jason Furman …. an economist in the Clinton administration and a top aide to John Kerry in 2004. His presence rebuts criticism that Mr Obama’s team has too little policymaking experience. Mr Furman, too, hews to the non-ideological centre, heading Washington’s Hamilton Project, an economic policy group co-founded by Bob Rubin, once Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary. Mr Furman is a staunch free-trader who once praised Wal-Mart and has favoured lowering corporate taxes. With a PhD from Harvard, he also does not lack for academic credentials.”

First, let me say there are degrees from Harvard and then there are DEGREES from Harvard.  I think we can all agree that George W. Bush’s Harvard MBA served only as a decoration.  I’m getting that same ol’ feeling from the Harvard Law Degree that Obama obtained.  There are hard ways of getting in to Harvard and easy ways to get into Harvard.  Legacies and diversity quotas stand among the latter.  Then, of course, there is the joke that Harvard is the hardest school to flunk out of once you’re in.  There are folks that struggle to get into Harvard and do a lot of homework that does eventually lead to credentials worthy of respect.  I’m willing to put Goolsbee and Furman in that latter list.  Their academic work is compelling and that is what I will focus on.

Goolsbee has had some rather impressive publications and topnotch peer- reviewed journals.  This is one way to tell the real deal.  You actually have to publish in a prestigious journal; not just manage or edit the journal.   Dr. Goolsbee is the real deal and teaches at the University of Chicago.  Yes, THAT University of Chicago that is well-known as a hot bed of Milton Friedman type, hands-off that market, monetarists.  His focus is primarily on markets and a lot of his research is in the area of the internet as market. His has experience as a policy wonk and has looked at both international trade and tax issues.

He has a lot of tax publications.  Now, I don’t think you’re going want to delve into the details, but do look at the titles and abstracts.  Here’s his on line vc which includes a lot of his publications.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/research/vitae.htm

Dr. Furman is also respected and has great credentials. He appears to have gotten in and out of Harvard the honorable way.  This is his vc listed at the Brookings Institute:

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/furmanj.aspx

I’ve heard that labor unions are fairly upset with his appointment.  Furman hasn’t been thrown under the gigantic Obama bus yet.  Neither has Goolsbee whose conversation with the Canadians about NAFTA was frequently cited as one of the problems costing Obama elections in Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Both of these dismal scientists are corporation friendly and have published papers criticizing the corporate income tax in the country.  Dr. Furman has done a bit of research in the social security arena.  I look forward to reading his articles as this is one area of interest to me.

Well, the purpose of this particular post is to introduce you to the players and you’ve got some homework you can do on your own if you you so choose.  As for me, I’ll go glean what I can out of their papers.  Again, that’s the best place to look for interests and tilts.  Given that The Economist didn’t send them directly up a flag post, I’m assuming they are both have a moderate-to-conservative outlook.  This would highlight a disconnect to me between those really liberal folks looking for Obama to be the shining beacon for the ultra liberal causes and also, those conservatives looking for Karl Marx in Obama’s closet.

I’ll look into them for the time being.  When the Obama campaign comes up with something more than touchy feeling economics positions, look back here,  I will be watching.


The Unity Pony is missing a few legs

I’ve always been a fan of NPR.  It’s the best way to spend a morning or afternoon commute to work.  They have not quite joined in the Main Stream Media Lovefest for Obama so I can listen with out feeling like my intelligence is being insulted.  This post concerns something they discussed earlier.  It seems they’ve discovered a keen lack of enthusiasm over Obama by key democratic constituencies.

I know that Donna and Howard and Nancy and Harry don’t think the party needs working class whites or women. We’ve been told that over and over. But NPR and Leon Pannetta suggest something different.

“Leon Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton, says Obama still faces problems with swing voters in swing states.

“By virtue of having lost some of those big states and some of those very important constituencies that are important — Latino, white, rural, a lot of the blue-collar women’s vote — he can’t afford to not get those votes back in the Democratic Party. … Those fault lines have cost the Democrats, I think, seven of the last 10 presidential races,” he says.

“If they open up and stay unhealed, then there’s no question that he ultimately loses,” Panetta adds.”

source:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91366795

I personally disagree with Panetta in that I think Obama’s got a lot more woman problems than the one’s he has with my blue collar sisters.  Most of the women that I know that can’t  stand Obama are highly educated and professional.  But, it got me thinking are there more folks out there not on the unity pony?  I decided to do some searching around the web for indications of some of the other groups since I’m more than aware of the so-called bitter women and racist hillbilly backlash.

First, I looked into where the Jewish money is going.  Jewish Americans are very politically astute and active. They also will donate to causes they believe in and care about.  When I ran for office in the mid 80s in Nebraska one of my best set of phone bankers were the Jewish women’s groups in Omaha.  They are tireless supporters of abortion rights and campaigns that strongly recognize the nonestablishment clause in the first amendment.   So here’s the first major indication that the Jewish money is going to McCain now that Hillary Clinton has been sidetracked.

Here’s a little bit from The Hill:

“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is attracting elite Jewish Democratic donors who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and are concerned about Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) stance toward Israel, say McCain backers who are organizing the effort to court Democrats.

McCain has already had several fundraising events with Jewish Democrats in Washington and Florida, say his supporters.

Oh, dear, that’s not going too well. I also imagine that all those nice jewish folks in Florida don’t like being considered 1/2 of a person either.  This does not bode well for Obama on many, many levels.

I guess even if you tell stories about Auschwitz and say you really didn’t mean it when you said Iran was not a threat, it just doesn’t cut it. It takes more than lip service and backpedalling to attract major Jewish donors.  I guess Obama’s former camp counsellor just isn’t on the unity pony.

source:  http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/jewish-dem-donor-joins-mccain-team-2008-06-10.html

Next, I went looking for some evidence that Hispanic Americans might being loving them some unity pony. Earlier, it was evident that pandering to Cuban-Americans wasn’t working very well for Obama.  I guess when you announce on every news channel during a debate that you intend to meet with leaders of rogue countries without preconditions that your average Cuban-American think this means the Castro brothers.  Obama again qualified and back pedaled.  It was quietly mentioned in the MSM over Memorial Day weekend that Cuban Americans were pretty safe Republican voters.  It appears they still will be.

However, Hispanic Americans are not some huge monolithic group  so, as the Google godess,  I went searching for the unity pony and any hispanic communities in the saddle.  I found this about the Hispanic votes in Obama’s backyard in Illinois.

“Dozens of Fox Valley Hispanics will get the chance to talk with Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s nominee for president, later this month. And they’ll get to do it for free.

McCain will be in Chicago on June 18 for a fundraiser at the Drake Hotel, but he’ll stick around that night to hold a town hall meeting with Illinois Hispanics …

“A lot of Hispanics are just hard-working small-business owners,” Brady said. “They don’t want their taxes going up, they don’t want the government in their business. They want the borders closed, but they want (immigrants here) treated humanely.”

Wyatt is a Mexican immigrant herself, and she said she respects McCain for being among the first to push for comprehensive immigration reform. McCain and Sen. Ted Kennedy jointly proposed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in 2007, which included a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The bill never reached a vote.”

Guess the unity pony doesn’t understanding Spanish very well.

How about you?  Are you getting on that Unity Pony?

I thought Democratic unity ponies were representative of all kinds of people.  Maybe this year, the unity pony has lost a few its parts.


and NOW, for the latest sexist analogy: Electile Dysfunction

I just read that all the ‘older’ women aren’t voting Obama because we’re like first wives that have just been thrown over for a trophy wife.

Here’s the link:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-the-trophy-wife/

The article (written by a woman) opens:

“It seems as if Hillary Clinton is just the latest mature, dependable, experienced woman to be unceremoniously dumped for a younger, prettier doe-eyed companion.”

After a few unflattering things to say about Harriet Christian (the now famous angry woman captured by Jane Hamshear of Firedog Lake), we are regaled by yet another round of woman-baiting verbiage.

“The anger of Ms. Christian and her Democrat sisters has perhaps less to do with the fact that Barack Obama is an “inadequate black male” than that he is the trophy wife for whom Mrs. Clinton — and by extension, her graying, menopausal supporters — has been thrown over.”

So now Barrack Obama is a trophy wife.  Elizabeth Scalia just keeps on with this analogy and digs in deeper.

“As a trophy wife, Obama would be content to let the Democrats pull out of Iraq; Hillary might actually suggest they stay. Obama would be able to sell the socialized health care Hillary couldn’t pull off. Most importantly, Obama would schmooze and photo-op with the elites for whose approval the Democrats so desperately yearned; Hillary was untrustworthy, there. She might snub Ahmadinejad and, like Bill Clinton before her, pledge to jump into a trench with a rifle to defend Israel. Obama would smile and look good while doing neither.”

While Obama is a trophy wife,  women not supporting him are now called “Youtube women”.  Any one who knows me, also knows I could not let this just drop without a response. I also couldn’t let the analogy drop.  So, join me while I explain why Obama doesn’t cut it in the performance arena.  Maybe this is why Michelle Obama is so angry all the time.

Actually, I say that women of a certain age and level of experience are not willing to vote for a guy of a certain age and level of performance that needs a medicine cabinet full of little blue pills to perform.

Obama cannot speak intelligently and with facts off teleprompter. Let’s also make it clear that his speeches are about “change you can xerox”.  Besides leaning heavily on the speeches of others, he also has twenty paid speech writers on staff.

His list of accomplishments is thin.  He really lacks that carry through and finish the project well factor.  He appears to have gotten the few positions he has attained by something other than achievement and brains. Folks in high schools with mostly B’s do not get into the Columbia University as a general rule. It used to be that one could not be the President of the Harvard Review without having achieved the top grade in the class. It also used to be they clerked with supreme court associates and at the very least with an associate of one of the major appeals courts without exception. It is unique that one is the President of the Harvard Law Review and doesn’t clerk for any prestigious court AND never publishes a single article. That’s right UNIQUE.

Usually, one does not win elections by getting the other candidates thrown out on a technicality. He’s done that twice. Now, he’s received the democratic nomination (sic) under highly suspicious circumstances. One, there have been lots of overly-weighted caucuses in states that usually don’t have caucuses. Two, he voluntarily pulled his name off a ballot and still managed to get pledged delegates from that race while taking voters who voted from a different candidate..  Isn’t this just one more symptom premature electile dysfunction?  Pulling out before you lose it? Could it just be that women are keener judges of who can cut it and who can’t perform?

Again, is this the real reason Michelle is perpetually grumpy, angry and mean?

 


Today’s ACTION MEMO: Tell the DNC you’re not going to TAKE IT!

 

This Grass Roots Action was put together by LAMusing and Shtuey

ALL HANDS ON DECK!

18 million hands – send them to the DNC!

1. Trace your hands on an 8×11 sheet of paper. Make it colorful to grab attention.
2. Write your name and city/state in the center of your hands and the words “I am one of 18 million.”
3. Above the hands, write: “These hands are on the front lines of democracy. I pledge I will not vote for Obama.”
4. Below the hands, write a line or two about your reasons you won’t vote for BO, why you are upset with the DNC, or whatever stirs your soul. We suggest you keep it fairly brief for maximum impact.
5. Put it in an envelope and send it off to the DNC.

Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

6. Pass it on!!! Post this call to arms wherever you can! Let’s bombard the DNC with the millions of hands of the voters they dismissed, ignored, disenfranchised and belittled. And remember the old saying – “Many hands make light work.”

Special note if you live in Florida: Make it just half a hand! Let them know you’d like to be a whole person again.