The More Things Change . . .

Before I started this blog, I maintained another blog, which I called Ahem (dumb name, I know. The very first entry explains it). 

I maintained the blog between October 24, 2008 and January 1, 2013. Obviously those dates are significant from a political standpoint: The presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 get quite a bit of attention.

I'm linking a couple of my responses to President Obama's re-election in 2012. 

A Terrible, Horrible, Mistake (Election Day, November 6, 2012) 

Because (The Day After, November 7, 2012).

As you can tell, I was devastated. But what's interesting (to me) is that my reactions are really not much different from the reaction I'm hearing from people this week. Maybe not as over-the-top. And it wouldn't have occurred to me to protest. And I didn't curse (I don't think. Maybe once). But the emotion, the despair...

Plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les mêmes.

A Tale of Two Presidents

Jihad in Paris, France

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, President Francois Hollande vows a "merciless response" on the "barbarians of ISIS."



Jihad in San Bernardino, California

In the aftermath of yesterday's attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino, Barack Obama, as is his wont, offered a calibrated, nuanced, tepid, analytical response, offering his "thoughts and prayers" to the victims of this "tragedy," speculating about motive ("possibly related to terrorism, but might also be workplace related"), and decrying once again the ease with which people can get guns in America.

Two attacks. Two responses. A study in contrasts. 

 


#leadershipfail

Links:

"Paris Terror Attacks: Francois Holland Vows Merciless Response to ISIS Barbarity" (Independent) 

"Obama: Still too Easy to Buy Guns in America" (Politico) 

"Obama on San Bernadino Attack: 'Possible This is Terrorist Related' but Could Also be 'Workplace Related" (The Blaze)

San Bernadino Shooting Live Updates (Los Angeles Times)

#whitelivesmatter, too

Yesterday, in Roanoke, Virginia, a 41-year old black man named Vester Lee Flanagan II, stalked, shot, and murdered two white people, 24-year old Allison Parker and her cameraman, 27-year old Adam Ward, in cold blood and on live T.V. while Parker was conducting an interview on live T.V. Flanagan not only videotaped the murder, he immediately tweeted about it and posted the video on Facebook, sent a 21-page manifesto-type suicide note to the media. Shortly thereafter, he shot himself and died in the hospital. 

Those reporting on the story reveal that the killer was a disturbed, angry, difficult man with a history of violence. Though he accused everyone around him of being racist, including the young woman he murdered (whom he may have once dated), it's clear that he himself was the racist. 

If this were a normal world, today's top stories would have something to do with #whitelivesmatter. But I'm not hearing much about race-related murder. Instead, all everyone's talking about, including Barack Obama, is gun control. Gun control. Not about an angry, bitter black man whose sense of victimization, no doubt fueled by the Left's divisive identify politics and the incendiary rhetoric of race-baiters like Louis Farrakhan, whose July 30th speech called for "10,000 men to rise up and stalk them and kill them," led to him stalking and murdering two beautiful talented young people in cold blood. 

Will Barack Obama repudiate Farrakhan's repugnant words? Is this a trick question? Of course Barack Obama won't repudiate Farrakhan. Nor will he pontificate about black racism. Nor will he appeal to the higher nature of both blacks and whites in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr., that all lives matter.

Of course, it goes without saying, if Flanagan had been white and his victims black, there would be 24/7 hand-wringing on cable news and riots in Roanoake, Virginia. Yet while Obama et al are exploiting this tragedy for their own political agenda, let the record show that not only was Vester Lee Flanagan II black, he was also gay, he was a Democrat, and he was an Obama supporter. His sense of grievance, his sense of victimization, his claims of bigotry and racism directed towards him, were validated and reinforced by the #blacklivesmatter movement promulgated by the Left. In simple terms, Vester Lee Flanagan II is a product of this poisonous message. 

Hence, the silence from the talking heads about what was clearly a hate crime committed by a black racist. Had he lived (the coward committed suicide), it is likely he would eventually have been lionized by the left. A new #blacklivesmatter meme would have been created to justify his actions, much the same as the left made up the hands-up-don't-shoot meme after the Michael Brown shooting, even though Michael Brown not only never raised his hands in surrende, it was he who was the aggressor. It was all a total lie, but truth doesn't matter to the left, only the message. So in that regard, I'm glad glad glad Vester Lee Flanagan died yesterday. All we have now are the facts. His suicide note. His video. His tweets. His work history. His Facebook rants. And the blood of Allison Parker and Adam Ward staining his wicked, depraved soul.

What's next? More of the same? Is it too much to hope, for Parker and Ward's sake, at least, that this tragedy will usher in a new conversation, a conversation not about white lives or black lives mattering but all lives mattering? It like such a cliche, but it's not. The phrase "all lives matter" is now on the hit list of politically incorrect things to say. So, unfortunately, I don't think that particular conversation will take place until Obama is out of office and until a man or woman with integrity, courage, and conservative values is elected president. I believe Barack Obama has done more to divide this country along racial lines than unite it. And until he rebukes radical racists like Louis Farrakhan, it's safe to say Obama bears some responsibility for what happened yesterday morning.

Rest in peace, Allison Parker and Adam Ward.

History's Chumps?

History repeating itself?

“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again" (Neville Chamberlain, September 30, 1938).

"Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change -- change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure” (Barack Obama, July 14, 2015).

Addendum

In the days after this deal was announced, much has been written regarding whether this deal could be fairly compared to 1938 Munich. While I believe the historical comparison is valid in the broader sense (the importance of learning from history's mistakes, of not appeasing tyrannical governments, of not attributing good will to nations that have a proven record of lying, etc.), there are differences between the circumstances leading up to the Munich agreement and those of the Iran deal. 

These distinctions are noted in Bruce Carlson's My History Can Beat Up Your Politics podcast (linked below), in which he provides background and context for Neville Chamberlain's actions. The podcast is about 40 minutes and is actually Part I (of two, I believe). Very interesting. 

Neville Chamberlain, Really (link opens up to an mp3 file). 

A Tale of Two Commencement Speeches

On the same day, no less!  

Barack Obama speaking to graduating cadets at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut on Wednesday, May 20, 2015.

"Climate change, especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security--our economic infrastructure, and the safety and health of the American people . . . We all know what needs to happen--it's no secret: The world finally has to start reducing its carbon emissions now. This is a place where we need you." 

Obama Recasts Climate Change as a Peril with Far-Reaching Effects (Julie Hirschfeld David, New York Times)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaking at the Imam Hussein Military University in Tehran on Wednesday, May 20, 2015

"They say new things in the negotiations. Regarding inspections, we have said that we will not let foreigners inspect any military center."  

Iran's Supreme Leader Rules out Broad Nuclear Inspections (Thomas Erdbrink, David E. Sanger, New York Times). 

That President Obama could speak about global warming as a threat to our homeland security only a few days after the fall of Ramadi to Islamic State, seemingly oblivious to the defiance of Iran's Supreme Leader regarding the supposed "deal" John Kerry is negotiating with Iran suggests that this president is quite possibly delusional. 

Credit Where Credit is Not Due

Ugh. I'm so tired of people attributing to Barack Obama characteristics or contributions which are not true. Take, for example, the Nobel Peace Prize which was awarded to President Obama in 2009. The man was elected in November 2008. What had he done in less than a year other than give a few good speeches? Now, here we are, six years into his administration, en route to paving the way for Iran to have a nuclear bomb in less than a decade that is likely to set in motion an arms race in that region (see "A Perverse Consequence" in The Weekly Standard here, for example). Meanwhile, the monsters of Islamic State are busy carving out a swath of destruction in their pursuit of an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. Their most recent conquest: Ramadi in Iraq, easy enough for them since Barack Obama, in his eagerness to withdraw troops from that region, left a huge vacuum. The barbarity, the atrocities, the rapes, the slaughter...this is Obama's legacy, "peace" prize notwithstanding. 

Speaking of speeches, that's another good example of attributing accomplishments to Obama that don't exist. He's supposed to be such an amazing orator. I have heard one amazing oration--the one he gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I actually remember watching him speak that night and saying to no one in particular because no one was nearby, he's going to be president someday. Yes, that was an incredibly powerful speech. However, nothing since then compares. Indeed, I can barely stand listening to him. Besides his unbearable propensity to pontificate, his speeches are punctuated by as many "uh's" as there are "I''s" and "me's."  

This photo essay in yesterday's Los Angeles Times is another good example. In almost a throw-away line, the author includes Obama with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela as a "sunny example" of civil rights leader. King, certainly! Mandela, of course! Their contributions to civil rights are easily recognized and extensively documented. Not so Mr. Obama's. In fact, as the first African American president, he has actually made race relations in America worse, not better. Personally, I think we're now a more racist country, not because "whites" hate the idea of a "black" president which his detractors love to say with little evidence to back it up, but because this black president has cynically promulgated the idea of "us" against "them," not only in a racial sense but in a socio-economic, classist sense.

Promoter of international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples? Mesmerizing orator and rhetorician? Notable civil rights luminary? Barack Obama is none of the above, and then some. Yet left-leaning Democrats, so loyal to ideology, seem practically incapable of recognizing the fraudulence of these putative attributes. 

Next up, Hillary Clinton, another politician of the worst stripe, queued up and ready to exploit the loyalty of those who will want to see her elected for no other reason than that she's a Democrat and she's a woman, regardless of the fact that she is unscrupulous, dishonest, manipulative, shady and probably corrupt. 

Identity politics (first race, now gender) and not qualification, coupled with social media and an electorate of diminishing intellect, could very will be the undoing of this beautiful experiment we call America.

My Anger at the Left

In the video below, which is a segment from a 60 Minutes interview with Clarissa Ward, the man being interviewed (who is apparently a British Islamist), says he wants to see Sharia Law implemented not just in London, but in Europe and America, as well. Here's a partial quote: 

"Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to see the hand of the thief cut [off]. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia Law in Europe, and I want to see it in America, as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.”

The patrols refer to the work he and his fellow radical Islamists do in the streets of East London, confronting British citizens for not complying with Sharia. You can see a few of these encounters in the video, some polite, some confrontational and intrusive. 

I fear the politically correct multi-cultural Left won't see this video as a portent of things to come. Clarissa Ward doesn't even know how to challenge this guy. All she can say, when he tells her she should cover up, is, That's absurd! Yes, it is absurd--to us. But to them, it's perfectly reasonable. At some point they'll stop being polite about it (see article below, "What Islam Isn't"). 

I can only pray that someone with more courage than 

​Barack ​Obama wins the presidency in 2016 because things are deteriorating pretty rapidly on his increasingly self-absorbed watch. 

​Leftists should pray too. This is beyond party politics. ​

We need a leader with courage and clarity, someone who will call things as they are (Islamic terror not violent extremism). Someone like the intrepid French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who has the temerity to call these monsters what they are, "Islamo-Fascists" (see Wall Street Journal article below).

The more ground we yield in our craven attempts to 

​not offend, ​the more the extremists will f​eel empowered to encroach on western values. At some point, it will mutate into what they really want, which is total domination. 

​This isn't my opinion. ​Read the recent article in The Atlantic called "What ISIS Really Wants" (link below). Years ago I remember expressing concern to my brother about Sharia Law. He pooh-poohed it. Yet here we are, seeing attempts to normalize it on the streets of London.​ Here we see it discussed in The Atlantic, not a right-leaning publication, far from it. 

Conservatives are mocked, silenced, caricatured, but I believe they're the ones who see this issue clearly. It will be up to the left to stop this coming darkness. 

Interesting side note. I just said, "this coming darkness." But I'm reminded of something Dennis Prager once said about evil. People automatically compare evil to darkness, the way I just did. But Prager says evil is really more like a blindingly bright light. Like trying to stare into the sun. It can't be done. 

That's what's going on here. The evil we read about, the brazen acts of violence graphically paraded on social media, is so glaringly bright, we look away. We pretend it's not happening, not as bad as it seems, not our responsibility. We scoff at alarmists. We say there are more important issues to confront, like climate change or gender neutral bathrooms in schools. We say it will never happen here. 

But I think it could come here, might in fact come here, especially if Iran gets its nuclear bomb, which this foolish, misguided, self-absorbed president is apparently facilitating in his arrogance and naiveté.

​I'm scared. But I'm also angry. I'm furious at people on the left for refusing to call thi​s devil-may-care president out, for letting this circus of a presidency go on unabated for so long in the name of their ideology. I'm furious at people on the right who either aren't paying attention ("I'm not interested in politics") or who don't think they can do anything about it (over 50% of evangelicals do not vote). We're like the proverbial frog in water, gradually coming to a boil. And I hold those on the Left, including my own relatives, wholly, unequivocally, emphatically responsible. 

Readings:

"What ISIS Really Wants," by Graeme Wood (The Atlantic, March 2015).

"France's Anti-Terror, Free-Market Socialist," by Sohrab Ahmari (Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview, February 27, 2015).

"What Islam Isn't," by Dr. Peter Hammond (an excerpt from his book, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam: Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat) 

Who's Calling Whom "Chickenshit"?

Barack (Barry) Obama

Sergeant Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu

'Nuff said. 


**** 

"The Crisis in U.S. Israel Relations is Officially Here" (Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, October 28, 2014). 

Two Reasons Why I Mislike President Obama

After nearly six years of watching this man in action, the first four of which I was fairly vocal (inasmuch as one can be vocal in a blog that no one reads), expressing a veritable alphabet of emotions: anger, bewilderment, bitterness, concern, disgust, dismay, exasperation, frustration. You get the idea. 

Now nearly six years in, emotion and agitation have been replaced. I'm less angry and more resigned. There's a dullness, a sinking feeling, even a sort of sadness. I, like so many, was right about this man. But the truth is, he's so much more than what I suspected. I don't think he's malicious, malevolent, conspiratorial. It's almost worse. He's a narcissist of the worst order. He's arrogant, intolerably so. Narcissism is bad enough, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker. Bill Clinton was (is) narcissistic. But his narcissism wasn't fatal. Combine narcissism with arrogance, put it in a place of power, surround it with fawning yes-men, prop it up with an acquiescent, uncritical media, and you really do have a problem, big time.

A new alphabet, this time of adjectives: arrogant, condescending, duplicitous, haughty, manipulative, narcissistic. 

At first, as I said, one gets all worked up and agitated and exercised. And early in this game, one genuinely believes that by pointing out these blindingly glaring character deficits, those who haven't seen them yet will suddenly see them, will have their ah ha! moment, agree, and, at the very least, be a bit more scrutinizing. But it doesn't happen. And after awhile, it dawns on one, that not only will those people not see the deficits that you so clearly see, they actually regard those deficits as qualities! 

About that time, one remembers pithy sayings, like, "There is none so blind as he who will not see," realizes one is fighting against a blindness, of sorts, and little by little, day by day, stops saying anything, and only sits back and gapes, open-mouthed, as the fundamentally transformed world that this man promised (the one promise he kept), continues to unfold. Deception runneth deep. 

Emotion mutates into resignation, with surreptitious glances at the calendar: two more years, two more years. Will this nation survive two more years with this foolish, arrogant man calling the shots? 

Fortunately there are a few who haven't stopped trying to explain. Today, for example, I'm reading Dan Henninger (Wall Street Journal) and Victor Davis Hanson (scholar, historian, author). Henninger illustrates Obama's arrogance, while Hanson focuses on his dishonesty. Two of the main reasons I mislike this president.

Who is listening? Surely not the members of my immediate family. But I'm resigned to this, as well. 


The Humbling of a President, by Dan Henninger

Brief excerpt (in case the article is only available to subscribers): 

There is a story about Mr. Obama relevant to the war, battle or whatever he declared Wednesday evening against the Islamic State, aka ISIS. It is found in his former campaign manager David Plouffe's account of the 2008 election, "The Audacity to Win." Mr. Plouffe writes that during an earlier election race, Mr. Obama had a "hard time allowing his campaign staff to take more responsibility." To which Barack Obama answered: "I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I'll hire to do it." 

Audacity indeed. In a 2008 New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza, Mr. Obama is quoted telling another aide: "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors." Also, "I think I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters." 

And here we are. 

In the days before Mr. Obama's ISIS address to the nation, news accounts cataloged his now-embarrassing statements about terrorism's decline on his watch—the terrorists are JV teams, the tide of war is receding and all that.

What we now know is that Mr. Obama is not even close to being his own best Secretary of State, his own best Secretary of Defense, his own best national security adviser or his own best CIA director.  The question is: Does he know it? Can a humbling experience of such startling proportions have sunk in? It had better. What the U.S. needs if it is to prevail in the battle Mr. Obama put forth Wednesday is the genuine article of presidential leadership. What the U.S. does not need in the Oval Office is a utility infielder playing everyone else's position. We are competing against global terrorism's heaviest hitters, who have established state seizure as a strategic goal. 

If Mr. Obama still thinks he's better than Susan Rice, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and John Brennan, then he and the nation supporting his anti-ISIS effort are being poorly served. 

Obama's Untruth, Inc., by Victor Davis Hanson 

Brief excerpt:

Obama’s prevaricating has lost him any thought of a legacy, all the more so because for years as a candidate and as president he pontificated about his new transparency and the need for executive candor — itself an untruth at best, and at worst a cynical ploy to provide cover for a deliberate effort to enact policies that could not be honestly presented to the American people. 

The two fuels that run Untruth, Inc., are, first, a realization that most of the president’s policies, whether deliberately or as a result of indifference and laziness, run counter to what most Americans support, and, second, a media establishment so invested in his agenda that it will not call the administration to account. So the engine of lying keeps humming. 

On any given day the president of the United States can step up to the teleprompter amid the latest disaster and swear that he did not do what he just did, or insist that someone else, not he, did the dastardly deed, or simply skip over recent history and make things up. The press at first quibbles, then nods in agreement, and Obama is empowered to do it again and again. We have not seen such a disingenuous president since Richard Nixon — but he, at least, was countered rather than enabled by the media.