The Real Obama

Feb 272014

By Becket Adams — Feb. 27, 2014

A constitutional law expert warned Congress during a hearing Wednesday that America has reached a “constitutional tipping point” under the watch of President Barack Obama.

Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of continued executive overreach.

“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” Turley said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”

“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” he added.

Interestingly enough, Turley said he actually agrees with many of the president’s policies and positions — just not the way the White House has gone about implementing them.

“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”

Turley stressed that Congress must take action if it wants to hold onto its power as the “thumping heart of our system.”

“We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority,” he said.

“No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress , not the courts , and not the president. We are stuck with each other in a system of shared powers — for better or worse. We may deadlock or even despise each other. The framers clearly foresaw such periods. They lived in such a period. Whatever problems we are facing today in politics, they are problems of our own making. They should not be used to take from future generations a system that has safeguarded our freedoms for over 250 years,” he added.

Also present at Wednesday’s hearing, titled “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” was Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University College of Law. She agreed with Turley, adding that Congress in in danger of becoming “superfluous.”

“Situations like this, these benevolent suspensions as they get more and more frequent and more and more aggressive, they’re eroding our citizens’ respect for the rule of law,” she said. “We are a country of law and not men. It’s going to render Congress superfluous.”

She said Congress hasn’t bothered with any meaningful legislation recently because it’s afraid the president would “simply benevolently suspend portions of the law he doesn’t like.”

“If you want to stay relevant as an institution, I would suggest that you not stand idly by and let the president take your power away,” she said.

The hearing spent a good deal of time discussing possible courses of action that could be taken to keep Obama’s so-called “imperial presidency,” as Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) called it, in check. The idea of filing articles of impeachment against the president was briefly discussed, but quickly replaced in favor of talk of lawsuits that could be brought against the White House.

Obama - The Great Usurper

Obama – The Great Usurper

Impeachment would “surely be extremely divisive within the Congress and the nation generally, and would divert the attention of Congress from other important issues of the day,” said Gerlach, who along with four other members of the House offered testimony on legislation that has been drafted to keep the president in check.

Gerlach is responsible for H.R. 857, the “Enforce the Take Care Clause Act,” which would make it easier and faster for federal courts to challenge executive actions.

“Given the growing number of examples where this President has clearly failed to faithfully execute all laws, I believe it is time for Congress to put in place a procedure for a fast-track, independent review of those executive actions,” he said.

Gerlach said he proposed the bill in response to the numerous Obamacare delays enacted by the White House.

“(T)he president, through his actions on the [Affordable Care Act], as well as in other areas of executive action, is fundamentally altering the delicate constitutional balance among the three branches of our federal system, and the concept of an ‘imperial presidency’ has reentered our national dialogue,” he said.

Watch the complete hearing here:

Video streaming by Ustream
via The Moment a Prof. Warned That America Is at a ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’ | Video |

Feb 152014

Courtesy of the — November 6, 2012

How does a President who used an ambassador to run guns through the CIA, to al-Qaeda, and then was complicit in his murder and then fired two senior military officers who tried to save the Ambassador’s life and then manage to get himself re-elected to the highest office in the land? Well, in a word, ignorance is the answer. I fear that America is about ready to pay a steep price for her slumbering ways.

obama lied - an ambassador diedThe above mentioned transgression should be enough to put Obama in irons for the next 30 years. Yet, the American people rewarded him with another presidential term..

After you read the following short list of Obama transgressions against the Constitution and the American people, ask yourself how safe do you feel with four more years of Obama?

Obama is not even a citizen of the United States, as determined by several researchers including Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Obama’s long form birth certificate was declared a forgery. Yet, America elected this illegal alien to a second term.

Under the Obama presidency, America has seen her national debt double and financial collapse is right around the corner. We have seen our allies jump ship in record numbers. We have over half the country on welfare. The Obama administration paid 22 billion dollars to help GM relocate most of its operations to China after the American people bailed GM out in 2008. Half of all college graduates cannot find fulltime work and most are saddled with crippling debt through their predatory college student loans.

Obama-half-deficitObama has closed a multitude of coal plants, thus making energy prices skyrocket. He has funded Solyndra and Pat Stryker’s Abound Solar with our tax money, to the tune of over a billion dollars, and not one kilowatt of solar energy was produced. The President is now leading the newest energy scam in the biofuel industry, namely, algae in which our nation is subsidizing millions, and soon to be billions to algae proponents including Warren Buffet, George Soros and Al Gore. The one thing that these men don’t tell you is that it takes 300 gallons of water to produce one gallon of algae gasoline.  And of course, under Obama, gas prices have more than doubled.

Obama’s depopulation leanings are expressed in his national health care law which, in one fell swoop, placed nearly 20% of the economy under socialist control. Under Obamacare, birth control services are mandatory. Lifestyles which do not add to the birthrate are honored (eg transsexual) and given preferential treatment by the Obama administration. Obama’s health care death panels will help America continue its slide in life-expectancy where we are presently 51st in the world despite spending 10 times more than the next dozen nations combined!

It is clear that Obama is not a Christian and honors every faith but the worship of Jesus Christ. Obama has kneeled at the feet of our enemies and I believe that he ultimately serves humanity’s greatest enemy, Satan.

The President pushed for the NDAA which allows him to disappear and murder political opponents and critics such as Andrew Breitbart. Obama’s


Andrew Breitbart

executive order entitled the National Defense Resources Preparedness, allows Obama, at the stroke of the pen, to enact civilian conscription and food confiscation along with the complete control of all industry by government. Under Obama, FEMA camps became operationalized and staffed. Does anyone ask why? Additionally, the TSA has taken its VIPR program to the streets in order to sexually assault more Americans in the name of liberty. If Obama has this much power at the end of his first term, what nightmare scenario will come in his second term?

As I have previously, Obama is an avowed Communist. Former communist party leader, Frank Davis was his father. Obama had his Harvard education paid for and had his political career launched by former Weathermen Underground thugs, Bernardine Dorne and Bill Ayers. Obama was raised to be a communist and now this despot has four more years to make the White House more like Red Square.

What could we have been thinking on election day? The fact is we were not thinking .The 47% of the people who are on Obama’s welfare voted to keep the federal gravy train rolling. Many of the 65% of young adults who cannot find Great Britain on a map, believe Obama when he says we can spend our way out of a depression. We are the victims of our own ignorance.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.  Obama will likely be golfing the day our economy becomes insolvent under his leadership. And that is when, the 80-90% of ignorant Americans will soon come to learn what many of us in the alternative medial already know, Obama passed the NDAA, The National Resources Preparedness and the death panels of Obamacare for a reason. Coupled with the fact that Obama has issued ten times more executive orders than all of the Presidents combined in our entire history which sets up the potential for a total dictatorship in his next 4 years in which I predict we will see absolute government by presidential decree. Be afraid America, be very afraid.

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny”.      Thomas Jefferson

via Be Afraid America, Very Afraid | Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show.

Jan 262014

By Greg Richter –Thursday, 23 Jan 2014

President Barack Obama plans to make income inequality a focus of his January 28 State of the Union address, but Dr. Ben Carson thinks he should contrast economic theories instead.

Obama should use his address to Congress to educate people on the difference between capitalism and communism,” and then ask them which system would they like,” Carson said Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto.”


Ben Carson – True American

The public’s response would likely be “eye-opening” to Obama, Carson said.

A new Fox News poll shows that only 13 percent of Americans are “angry” about income inequality and think the government should be involved in correcting it. Another 21 percent agree it is a problem, but don’t think it is the government’s responsibility to solve. And 62 percent say that’s just “how things work.”Barack Obama

“The big problem is the government,” Carson said. “If they would get out of the way I think the gap would naturally be bridged.”

He suggested concentrating on equality of opportunity and equality of education. He suggested reallocating how property tax money is allocated to schools. Currently, schools in wealthy areas get more money.

Free markets have led the United States to being a “pinnacle nation,” Carson said.

Leftist policies of raising taxes on the richest while pushing for higher minimum wages for the poorest do little to close the gap, he said, since the rich can put their money into interest-bearing accounts, while the poor are left waiting for jobs, such as with the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which are in limbo because of government regulations.

“Get out of the way and let the economy work,” Carson said.

A retired professor and celebrated pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University, Carson has been discussed as a possible presidential candidate for 2016.

He reiterated his line to Cavuto that he has no desire to run.

” I, as a patriotic American citizen, will do whatever needs to be done,” he said. “But that is not my intention.”

via Ben Carson: Obama State of Union a Lesson in Communism?.

 Posted by at 10:00 am  Tagged with:
Nov 082013

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, — November 8, 2013

Obama’s betrayal of Israel is stunning and completely predictable. It’s right on schedule along with the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. I don’t know how anyone could be surprised by this. Whispers are on the wind that a nuclear deal is within reach between the US and Iran, but the US has already been quietly lifting financial sanctions, enabling the terrorist Islamic state. While Obama and his Muslim acolytes have been busy emboldening, financing and arming Iran to destroy tiny Israel, he has distracted America with a myriad of emergencies and shiny objects all of which spell death to Israel and eventually death to America.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu tells it like it is…..

The infidels have been duped and Iran is now simulating missile attacks on Israel, getting ready for the big show to come:

An agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program seems imminent, but the charm offensive in Geneva is not mirrored at home. In Tehran, the Iranian government sent a different message with a broadcast on state television of a simulated missile attack on Israel.

The hour-long documentary program included segments about the capabilities of Iranian missiles and the possibility of their use in response to foreign threats. The program included a video simulation of a potential response by Iran to an Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.

The video showed computer-animated launches of Iran’s long-range Sejjil ballistic missiles. The animations show Israel’s air defense systems intercepting a few missiles as others penetrate the protective layer and destroy different strategic targets across Israel.

Among the targets shown are the Azrieli Towers and the Kirya in Tel Aviv, the IDF base Tzfirin in central Israel, a generic missile launch site, Ben Gurion Airport, and the nuclear reactor at Dimona. The targets were circled on Google Maps, and the video finished with real pictures of casualties from the Second Lebanon War.

Obama and the Progressives screamed to high heaven over cross-hairs being used on targets in connection to guns and Sarah Palin — Iran attacking Israel, not so much. The Obama Administration began softening sanctions on Iran right after the election of Iran’s new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the phone chats between the two power brokers in September. That was five months ago and long before that, all of this was already a foregone conclusion. Obama never intended to stop Iran or protect Israel. Quite the opposite. We all saw it coming and no one did a thing to stop it. Shame on all of us. All of the feigned pressure on Iran’s banks, the squeezing of their coffers has been for show. Like everything else to do with Obama, it is a lie… a show for the masses and merely gauze covering his true intentions. Obama wants a Caliphate; he wants a worldwide Islamic supremacy and he kneels before Islam:

A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.

On Wednesday Obama said in an interview with NBC News the negotiations in Geneva “are not about easing sanctions.” “The negotiations taking place are about how Iran begins to meet its international obligations and provide assurances not just to us but to the entire world,” the president said.

Not only is this Islamic theater, it makes a laughing stock of America which is Obama’s intention:

Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, an organization that has worked closely with Congress and the administration on devising the current Iranian sanctions, said the slow pace of designations was only one kind of sanctions relief Obama has been offering Iran.

“For five months, since Rouhani’s election, the United States has offered Iran two major forms of sanctions relief,” Dubowitz said. “First there’s been a significant slowdown in the pace of designations while the Iranians are proliferating the number of front companies and cutouts to bust sanctions.”

The second kind of relief Dubowitz said the White House had offered Iran was through its opposition to new Iran sanctions legislation supported by both parties in Congress.

By Dubowitz’s estimates, Iran is now selling between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels of oil per day on the black market, meaning that Iran has profited from the illicit sale of over 35 million barrels of oil since Rouhani took office, with little additional measures taken by the United States to counter it.

“Sounds like Obama decided to enter the Persian nuclear bazaar to haggle with the masters of negotiation and has had his head handed to him,” Dubowitz said.

Maggie’s Notebook clarifies:

The U.S. Treasury, secretly, stopped the “blacklisting of entities and people” who help Iran get around all those so-called “crippling” sanctions that have been going on for years with no success. When Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad, the changes began. The Treasury “blacklist” had more than 100 names and entities add to it in the six weeks leading up to the Iranian elections. Since the election, the Treasury has added “six people and four companies” to the list of violators.


In America today, for many reasons, the U.S. Treasury is among our fiercest enemies and while Obama is doing what he’s “really” good at, “killing,” taking out al-Qaeda leaders who are quickly replaced, he is aiding the militant extremists at the top of the ruling hierarchy to grab more control of their people and the goal of a dominant Islam.

Netanyahu and Israel are stating that the US negotiating with Iran is a mistake of historic and epic proportions. I would call it apocalyptic. While Kerry clownishly plays at diplomacy, he just can’t hide his evil, smirkish glee at sticking it to the Little Satan. Selfish, globalist, wealthy elitist that he is, Kerry believes he is above the fray. But just like Obama and the rest, when they have served their purpose, they will most likely meet their end as all despotic tyrants do — violently. If not, they will be protected while others die which they are fine with and their fate will be determined by God who, I wager, will have a thing or two to say to them.

In the meantime, Israel will not go as a lamb to the nuclear slaughter and will not be bound with deals with the devil:

Netanyahu warned Kerry and his European counterparts that Iran would be getting “the deal of the century” if they carried out proposals to grant Tehran limited, temporary relief from sanctions in exchange for a partial suspension of, and pledge not to expand, its enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel.

“Israel utterly rejects it and what I am saying is shared by many in the region, whether or not they express that publicly,” Netanyahu told reporters.

“Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people,” he said before meeting Kerry in Jerusalem.

The US is on the wrong side. We have gone to bed with evil and are actively assisting it. This will not end well for America. It is becoming more and more obvious that we have learned nothing from history and we have turned our back on God. If so, He will surely turn His back on us for betraying His people. America has allowed Islamists and Marxists to infiltrate her government and positions of power. We have willingly submitted to Progressive diktats and humbled ourselves before a dictator, eschewing our Founding Principles and our Constitution in the name of security and equality. What does one call self-induced slavery and national suicide? When does the freest nation the earth has ever known, slip over the edge into totalitarian darkness and did anyone even notice?

Israel’s mistake was even bothering to listen to Obama and his cohorts. They should have known better. But they wanted to show the world that they were better than the tyrants; that they made every effort to avoid war and bloodshed. For their attempts, they are being rewarded with lies, deception and betrayal. They may be rewarded with war and death. In the end, God walks with Israel and I’ve got to tell her enemies, I wouldn’t want to be you guys. No way. ‘Vengeance is mine,’ sayeth the Lord.

Netanyahu made a very timely statement from the Israel on the eve of a possible nuclear deal between the US and Iran:

“I met Secretary Kerry right before he leaves to Geneva,” said Netanyhau. “I reminded him that he said that no deal is better than a bad deal. That the deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal–a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.”

Right he is and it falls completely on deaf ears and blind bureaucrats. While Netanyahu slams Obama and Kerry on their groveling before the Mullahs, Israel girds her loins for war. She will stand alone. Obama’s betrayal of Israel and arming of Iran is almost complete. Next up… nukes, missiles and EMPs, oh my.

via Obama’s Betrayal of Israel and Arming of Iran | Right Wing News.

 Posted by at 8:03 pm  Tagged with:
Oct 292013

By Samuel Gonzalez — October 29, 2013

And this is what makes Obama a lying son of a bitch! I don’t wanna hear about how this is his signature piece of legislation.

He purposely LIED to millions! The law was passed deceitfully with back alley deals and the corrupt media played their part too because they DID NOT REPORT OBJECTIVELY! They cheerleading a fiasco because they love Obama and screw everything else.
THIS WHY TED CRUZ and some conservative Republicans wanted to defund it because they were looking out for the best interests of the American people.


Obama Lied to the American People Regarding their Health Insurance Plans

Daily Mail reports between half and three-quarters of Americans who buy their own health insurance on the open market will lose those plans in the next year as Obamacare is pushed into full implementation, according to a blockbuster report sure to give the White House a new round of obamahealth-care headaches.
‘No matter how we reform health care,’ a newly minted President Barack Obama told a meeting of the American Medical Association in June 2009, ‘we will keep this promise:  If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.  Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.  No one will take it away. No matter what.’
But regulations formulated by his own administration make it clear that the White House never intended to to give Americans that level of free choice about their medical insurance options.
Washington, D.C. buzzed Friday with reports of what NBC News had surfaced: an under-the-radar notice in the Federal Register, which MailOnline has dated to June 17, 2010, laying out the administration’s expectation that most people who buy their own health insurance will soon have no options other than paying exorbitant rates or joining the federal government’s insurance exchanges.
White House spokeswoman Jessica Santillo told NBC that ‘nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans:  The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees.’

But millions of individual insurance plans don’t comply with Obamacare’s minimum standards, which include services like children’s vision care, dental coverage and reproductive health options that some consumers don’t want.
Millions more with policies written before March 2010 will lose the ‘grandfather’ status President Obama has promised them because of tiny, marginal changes like premium adjustments or revised prescription copay rates.
‘Any insurance that you currently have would be grandfathered in so you could keep it,’ President Obama claimed during a CNN broadcast in February 2010.  ‘And so you could decide not to get, in the exchange, the better plan. I could keep my Acme insurance, just a high-deductible catastrophic plan.  I would not be required to get the better one.’
John Kyl, then a Republican senator from Arizona, countered with words that now seem prescient: ‘That’s for a very limited period of time.’

via LYING BASTERD :The White House knew all along: Most Americans with individual health insurance plans will get cancellation notices under Obamacare | Right Wing News.

 Posted by at 10:53 pm  Tagged with:
Oct 222013

By : Dave Blount — October 22, 2013

If it is run by the federal government, it is run by liberals. Liberals are by definition morbidly obsessed with race and committed to benefiting other groups at the expense of whites, who according to their bizarre ideology must be punished for being racist. Thanks to Obama and his collaborators, this will soon affect your healthcare:

A 2009 report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) examining [ObamaCare] advocates pairing patients and doctors of the same race, a goal toward which the law channels taxpayer dollars. …

“There is… evidence that race concordance — defined as shared racial or ethnic identities between clinicians and patients — is related to patient reports of satisfaction, participatory decision making, timeliness of treatment, and trust in the health system,” the report reads. In other words, fixing the broken U.S. healthcare system means assigning Hispanic doctors to Hispanic patients, African American doctors to African American patients, Creole doctors to Creole patients, and so on.   Bend over America here comes obamacare

To accomplish this, the CAP report explains, Obamacare pours taxpayer dollars into affirmative-action candidates whose judgment will lead them to make life-or-death decisions. Ultimately, these taxpayer-funded grants would provide scholarships and loan forgiveness for minorities so they could provide healthcare services exclusively to their own race or ethnicity.

As is often the case with ham-fisted coercive micromanagement, this will have the opposite effect from what pointy-headed liberal masterminds intend. Since only the best white candidates will be able to get through medical school in the face of systematic discrimination against them, and nonwhite candidates will be advanced for their race rather than their ability, white doctors will be superior, regardless of the comparative merits of the races overall. White patients will get doctors who know what they are doing; those of politically approved pigmentation will often get Affirmative Action cases given responsibilities beyond their capacity. For an idea of how disastrous this can be, look at the current occupant of the Oval Office.

There is no problem created by government meddling that the government can’t make worse by fixing it with more meddling. As mythical disparities in the quality of healthcare received by whites and nonwhites become real, authorities will seize on them as an excuse to target an even higher proportion of money toward favored groups. When you need an expensive test or procedure, this will be very good news if you are not white, but very bad news if you are.

Using money expropriated from taxpayers (wealth redistribution) to punish and reward along racial lines is a fundamental feature of ObamaCare:

Obamacare, the report reads, “provides scholarships and loan repayment support for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds serving in the health professions, and it grants funding for the Health Careers Opportunities Program, which supports schools that recruit and train individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to work in the health professions. The bill also establishes a grant program at HRSA [Health Resources & Services Administration] to promote health care professionals’ cultural and linguistic competence.”

In Govspeak, “disadvantaged” means “nonwhite.”

Grants are indeed handed out on a racial or ethnic basis. For example, Subtitle D, Sec. 756 of the Affordable Care Act lists eligibility requirements for mental health grants that demand universities and colleges recruit and “understand the concerns” of minority students, that programs offered to those students must emphasize “cultural or linguistic competency” — and the institutions must provide the HHS Secretary racial data on its student body, under threat of not only losing its grants, but being forced to repay them to the government.

There is no place for individual merit in liberals’ worldview, because they do not perceive people as individuals, but as interchangeable representatives of political interest groups that must be either rewarded or punished. Consequently, there will be no place for merit in a USA completely dominated by the malignant federal behemoth. Mediocrity will reign supreme, as in all socialist countries.

via Healthcare Apartheid | Right Wing News.

 Posted by at 5:26 pm  Tagged with:
Oct 142013

Paul Joseph Watson — — October 14, 2013

While the government is supposedly still in “shutdown,” more money is being spent on new barricades to fence off the World War II memorial in DC, just hours after outraged veterans removed the old barricades and dumped them outside the White House.

Barrycades at WWII Memorial

Installing new government shutdown barricades at World War II Memorial.

New barricades set up at World War II Memorial

New barricades set up at World War II Memorial

Some have cited the White House’s vindictiveness over the barricades as an example of how Obama is behaving like “President Stompy Feet” in punishing Americans for the government shut down.

Others said re-installing the barricades was another “slap in the face” for veterans and noted that the White House is a lot more keen to secure war memorials than they are the country’s border.

After wounded veterans and their supporters helped remove the barricades and dump them outside the White House yesterday during the ‘Million Vet March’, the feds sent in baton-wielding riot cops in an attempt to intimidate the protesters.

WWII Memorial Barricades Piled up in Front of WH

WWII Memorial “Barrycades” Piled Up in Front of the White House

Veterans clash with police with batons in front of the White House


via Feds Order Barricades Back Up at WWII Memorial Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.

 Posted by at 1:46 pm  Tagged with:
Sep 032013

September 2, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Obama’s belated agreement to take the Syrian strikes before Congress, while asserting that he will not be bound by whatever Congress decides, buys him a convenient exit strategy.

The Congress trap will let Obama opt out of an attack that he is ambivalent about while blaming Republicans for destroying American credibility. Even now the progressive spin machine is roaring into action and denouncing Congress for not immediately returning to session to consider Obama’s plan.  

Considering that Obama waited for two years before deciding to bomb Syria, it seems ridiculously hypocritical of his political palace guard to denounce Congress for not immediately springing into action; but hypocrisy is hardly an obstacle for a Democratic Party that dramatically reversed its position on Iraq and now once again favors unilateral wars over WMDs.

Obama’s Rose Garden speech baited the trap with its warning to Congress to avoid partisan politics.

“I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment. Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad,” Obama said.

That is the Catch 22 trap. Either Congress adopts an unpopular attack in order to do the supposedly responsible thing or it gets accused of sabotaging American credibility for partisan politics and is held responsible for a great many dead children.

Obama prefers creating Alinskyite political traps for his opponents over doing the responsible thing. And his favorite trap is the one that shifts the blame for his irresponsibility to the Congressional Republicans who have been his favorite target ever since Bush retired to paint dog pictures.

Either Congress “invests” in Obama’s war and immunizes him from criticism by the Republican Party. Or Obama opts out of the war and blames Republican obstructionism for undermining American credibility abroad while splitting the Republican Party between interventionists and non-interventionists.

Obama’s speech and the distorted media coverage of it have given the impression that Congress gets the final say and that Republicans either have to give Obama a blank check on Syria or get the blame. These are the same cynical tactics that Obama has employed on the economy.

When faced with a difficult political choice, Obama’s natural instinct is to find someone to blame and to use that blame to sow division among his enemies while escaping responsibility for his own disaster.

On the debt ceiling, Obama self-righteously insisted that he would not allow Congress to avoid “paying our bills”. The bills were actually his bills, but he frequently uses the singular possessive pronoun for things that he believes that he controls but does not own, like the United States military, but shifts over to the plural possessive pronoun when trying to avoid responsibility for things that he should own up to.

“Now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments,” Obama said in the Rose Garden. But America had made no such collective commitments. Congress certainly had not.

When avoiding responsibility, Obama uses “Our”  to mean “Mine”.  What he really means is that having made a mess of Syria, he intends to dump the problem on Congress and make it “our problem” while still keeping all of his options open.

Once Congress begins debating Syria, the media will spin it as “partisanship” and an inability to reach a decision while contrasting that unfavorably with the decisiveness that led Obama to announce that his red line had been crossed some months later. Congress will be lambasted in editorials and cartoons for being unable to make a decision while Syrian children are dying.

Congress can give Obama the option of staying out of Syria while scoring political points. And that is why the Republican Party has to be careful when navigating these treacherous political currents.

Americans largely oppose intervention in Syria. So do most other countries. The Republican Party should not undermine its 2014 prospects by rubber stamping an unpopular military campaign that will raise Obama’s profile and reward Al Qaeda. But it should also avoid giving the appearance of irresponsibility that the media will be looking to seize on.

The best way to blunt the push for war is to ask the tough questions about the links between Al Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army, why so little attention is being paid to chemical weapons manufacture by the Al Nusra Front and whether the strikes will actually destroy Assad’s WMD stockpiles or whether they are only meant as the symbolic gesture that some officials have said that they will be.

Obama has said that he does not intend to intervene in the war or to implement regime change by military means. These assertions would be more credible if he were not arming the Syrian rebels and if he were willing to carry out drone strikes against Al Nusra Front leaders, instead of limiting the attack to the Syrian military, implicitly favoring the operatives of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Mitt Romney failed to be fully prepared when challenging Obama’s Libyan War narrative. Republicans should learn from his mistake.

Benghazi was the outcome of Obama’s Libyan War. Republicans failed to hold him accountable for that. Now Obama has thrown another war with even more dangerous implications into the lap of Congress while hoping that it will blow up in their faces.

The debate will provide a national forum to question whether we should be picking a side in this war. The interventionists will point to photos of dead children, a staple of regional conflicts, but Republicans should instead ask the hard questions about the number of dead and exiled Christians at the hands of the Islamist militias we will be fighting to protect. And they should even call on some of them to testify.

In Libya, Obama claimed that the humanitarian plight of the people of Benghazi required urgent military intervention, but it was really the Islamist militias of Benghazi that he was worried about. In Syria, any strikes will be conducted on behalf of the same Islamist militias scrambling to hold on to cities that were once full of Christians, but are now run by Sunni Islamic Jihadists implementing Islamic law at gunpoint.

Obama intends to use Syria as a weapon in a political power struggle against the United States Congress, but it’s also an opening for exposing his Muslim Brotherhood alliances and the wisdom of his Muslim Brotherhood regime change operations in Syria and Egypt.

via Obama’s Plan to Blame Syria on Congress.

 Posted by at 12:00 pm  Tagged with:
Aug 292013

August 27, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

When the dust settles in Cairo, at least long enough to make out anything through the smoke and flames, it may turn out that the Muslim Brotherhood has suffered its worst blow at the hands of none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

The blow will not have been intentional. Like the killing of Bin Laden, a useful intervention carried out by Navy SEALS who were perhaps less than enthusiastic about Obama’s plan to use the civilian trial of the terrorist leader as a prop for dismantling the military tribunal system, it wasn’t something that he meant to do.

It just happened.

Obama could never have intentionally defeated the Muslim Brotherhood. But he may have just hugged it to death.

Freedom Loving Egyptians Hate Obama

Freedom Loving Egyptians Hate Obama

To understand the Middle East is to understand that the deaths of hundreds of protesters or massive street fighting don’t really matter all that much. Not in a region where Saddam Hussein or the butchers of Sudan could pile up enough corpses to start an entire country and still enjoy the support of the Muslim world.

The trick is killing the right people. Saddam Hussein killed Shiites and Kurds with religious and ethnic differences from the region’s Arab Sunni baseline. Sudan killed Christians and animists who are infidels and rebellious dhimmis making them even more foreign and more “killable.”  It is that foreignness which is all-important. Muslims are not supposed to kill Muslims unless they’re somehow “foreign” either by being members of a heretical sect or a different ethnic group. And if all else fails, they can be pawns of foreigners. That is why both sides in Egypt keep accusing each other of being Jews.

Osama bin Laden aimed at America to hit the House of Saud because it allowed him to charge the Guardians of Mecca and Medina with being American puppets.  That is the charge that has been laid against the Muslim Brotherhood. It is what makes killing them of no more note than a minor change in the weather. The only charge against the Muslim Brotherhood that matters is the charge of “foreignness.”

Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood made them fair game in the Muslim world.

The military and the opposition understood immediately that the only way the overthrow of Morsi could be made palatable to most Egyptians was by portraying it as a fight not merely against the Brotherhood, but against a conspiracy between Washington and the Brotherhood. The Egyptian people might be divided on Morsi, but they could be united against Obama.

Their plan was to hang Obama around the Muslim Brotherhood’s neck.

The Muslim Brotherhood belatedly scrambled to portray the coup as an American-Zionist conspiracy, but it was late to the party. Tahrir Square had already been choked with banners demonizing Kerry, Obama and Anne Patterson for their support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And the Brotherhood had trouble making the case that its downfall was a plot by Obama, when Obama kept insisting that the Brotherhood’s leaders needed to be released and returned to power.

Obama played beautifully into the opposition’s hands by denouncing Morsi’s overthrow and urging the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders. It was a plan that made sense in Washington, which reflexively thinks in terms of issuing orders, but in Cairo it looked like the puppet master demanding the return of his puppets.

The Egyptian military had stepped in as a response to a national emergency dealing with foreign intervention in Egypt’s political system. The more Obama denounced the military’s actions, the more he was demonstrating that the Egyptian military had been correct to step in.

Despite his years in the Muslim world and his family connections, Obama had not really understood how Egypt worked. And his associates understood it even less. If they had, they would have pulled out Anne Patterson once she became a target and openly criticized Morsi for not listening to the demands of the protesters, while privately conveying a message of support.

Instead Obama hugged Morsi to death. And he’s still hugging Morsi to death.

The American emissaries who met with Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat al-Shater in prison did it with as much fanfare as they could muster. The Muslim Brotherhood spokesman frantically tried to deny that the meeting happened or that Khairat al-Shater had been willing to even talk to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, but that just made the Brotherhood seem like a bigger bunch of liars. And why else would they lie about a meeting with American diplomats unless they were trying to hide that they were really puppets of Uncle Sam?

Obama’s entire plan to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power had laid the seeds of its destruction. The insistence on having Muslim Brotherhood members at the Cairo speech, the demand that Mubarak step down, the urging of rushed elections that benefited the Muslim Brotherhood; the entire process by which Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood come to power became its indictment.

Anti-Obama protests in Egypt

Anti-Obama protests in Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood’s violent past was ugly, but terrorism is not the ultimate offense in the Muslim world. Muslims support terrorism when fighting foreigners or foreign influences. Treason, the willingness to become a foreign influence, is the ultimate crime.

If the Egyptian legal system, that the Muslim Brotherhood tried and failed to destroy, succeeds in convicting the Muslim Brotherhood of serving foreign interests in the court of public opinion, it will have dealt it a serious blow that the Brotherhood will spend a long time recovering from.

In Washington, Obama still continues misreading events as a military coup. The protesters parading around Cairo with Islamic photoshops of his face picked up from American conservative sites are a minor irritant to be dismissed with another of his condescending speeches as if they were Tea Party members. The problem is tackled with arbitrary denials of foreign aid, pressure phone calls and a touch of diplomatic isolation.

And the generals and liberals are laughing to themselves, the way that the Muslim Brotherhood leaders used to at their cleverness in tricking Obama.

Egypt’s new government knows that it won’t win over Obama any time soon. But it isn’t trying to. Instead its goal is to smash the Muslim Brotherhood, leaving it the only game in town. And then Obama can take it or leave it.

Osama tried to bring down Saudi Arabia by attacking America. The new Egyptian government is attacking America, domestically, to bring down the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s the typically indirect politics of a xenophobic region where not only don’t you see the knife coming, you also never find out why you were stabbed.

While Obama played checkers with the region, its power players had gotten out their chessboards and deftly checkmated yet another Western regime change project. With the typical slowness of the obtuse, Obama still doesn’t understand that he lost or what the game even was.

Obama and Kerry believe that they are men of nuance, but they are crude, loud and obvious compared to the men that they are up against who have outplayed them in Egypt and are ready to begin burying the rotting corpse of the Arab Spring beneath the Sinai sands.

via Hugging the Brotherhood to Death.

 Posted by at 2:00 pm  Tagged with:
Aug 172013

By CONN CARROLL | AUGUST 16, 2013 AT 11:30 AM

Contrary to assurances from President Obama himself, thousands of American phone calls were intercepted by the National Security Agency in one year alone. (AP/Jacquelyn Martin) Contrary to assurances from President Obama himself, thousands of American phone calls were…


Contrary to assurances from President Obama himself, thousands of American phone calls were intercepted by the National Security Agency in one year alone. (AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

Obama’s promise
On August 9, Obama told Americans from the East Room of the White House:

If you look at the reports, even the disclosures that Mr. Snowden’s put forward, all the stories that have been written, what you’re not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and, you know, listening in on people’s phone calls or inappropriately reading people’s e-mails. What you’re hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now part of the reason they’re not abused is because they’re — these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law and would be against the orders of the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court].

Snowden’s reality
But according to an internal NSA audit provided by Snowden and published by the Post Friday, in the 12 months preceding May 2012, the NSA’s Washington-area intelligence gathering assets identified 2,776 incidents of “unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications.” In just one incident, a “large number” of calls placed from Washington were intercepted by the NSA “when a programming error confused the U.S. area code 202 for 20, the international dialing code for Egypt.”

And these incidents are just from the NSA’s Washington-area facilities. Government officials tell the Post that, “the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers.”

Obama’s rapidly shrinking credibility
Obama is already under fire from his own base for refusing to fire Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who has admitted giving false testimony to Congress about the NSA surveillance program. A “We the People” White House petition being promoted by progressive media sites like Daily Kos.

Considering Obama’s now routine selective execution of the existing laws of the United States (from the Obamacare employer mandate delay, to the No Child Left Behind waivers, to the non-enforcement of immigration laws), it is a wonder Obama still has credibility with the American people.

via Morning Examiner: Snowden leaks deal another blow to Obama’s credibility

 Posted by at 10:20 pm
Jul 272013
By Arnold Ahlert —  July 26, 2013

A new poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reveals that public perceptions about race relations in America have taken a devastating hit since the election of Barack Obama. At the beginning of the president’s first term, 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks had a positive view of American race relations.

Those numbers have plummeted to 52 percent and 38 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, 45 percent of whites now consider race relations fairly or very bad, compared with 20 percent in 2009, and the negative views held by black Americans has jumped from 30 percent to 58 percent. Thus, the idea that the election of Barack Obama would usher in a golden age of so-called post-racial relations has exploded. And the president and his administration bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for lighting the fuse.

The poll, conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies, has tracked Americans’ attitudes about race since 1994. And despite only a single poll question regarding the Zimmerman trial, which asked whether the outcome increased, decreased, or didn’t affect one’s confidence in the legal system, the steepest decline in positive views, and greatest increase in negative views, occurred in the last two years. That the timeframe largely coincides with the Trayvon Martin shooting controversy is likely no coincidence.

The Trayvon Martin case is one of the most visible examples of the Obama administration’s deliberate poisoning of race relations; all in coordination with the NAACP, the racial grievance industry and the corrupt leftist media. We now know that the administration had direct involvement in fanning the flames of racial discord that brought the case to the national stage. The Eric Holder-led Justice Department’s Community Relations Service (CRA) was sent to Sanford, FL to help set up meetings and organize protests. Among other services, the administration arranged an escort for college students participating in a 40-mile march to “demand justice” for Trayvon. When the situation erupted, Obama then famously took the racial motif national, saying, ”If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

Even after the jury rendered its not guilty verdict in the Zimmerman trial, Obama, once again, injected himself into the case, this time noting that “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” and launching into a lecture on race — despite the fact that a Martin family lawyer, Trayvon’s stepmother, the Sanford police, and an investigation conducted by the FBI all concluded the case had nothing to do with race.

However, well before the Trayvon Martin shooting, Obama made clear he would use the presidency to provide a platform for the race agitation industry. Prior to his election in 2008, the president sought to belittle small town “bitter clingers” who demonstrate “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment[.]“ In July 2009, when black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested in front of his Cambridge home after antagonizing police, Obama, despite admitting that he had not seen “all the facts,” still came to the conclusion that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” In a radio interview that aired on Univision in 2010, the president urged his Latino supporters to “punish our enemies and reward our friends,” in the upcoming election. That was the same year he made an unsubtle reference to Rosa Parks and segregation in order to belittle Republicans. “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us,” the president told supporters in Rhode Island. “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

At a January 2012 Washington fundraiser, the president made subtle references to the idea that if he weren’t reelected, minorities would be denied opportunities to pursue the American dream, while he implied Republicans would be the ones do the denying. “The notion that we’re all in this together, that we look out for one another–that’s at stake in this election,” he warned. “Don’t take my word for it. Watch some of these [Republican] debates that have been going on up in New Hampshire.” The following August in Colorado, Obama kept that meme alive, insisting that Republicans, “want to take us back to the policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.”

If such a divisive attitude were limited to the president himself, maybe race relations might not have soured as much as they have. Unfortunately, many members of his administration have also been more than willing to fan the flames of racial discord. Former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, who referred to Republicans as “assholes,” insisted that “white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities.” Addressing the annual NAACP convention in Orlando, FL on July 17, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius likened those who oppose ObamaCare to those who opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, comparing the fight against them to “the fight against lynching and the fight for desegregation.” On August 14, 2012, Vice President Joe Biden told a largely black audience in Danville, Virginia, that Republicans wanted to “put y’all back in chains.” Former Assistant Attorney General and current Labor Secretary Thomas Perez viewed virtually every aspect of his former job through a racialist lens, from prosecuting banks for lending discrimination based on dubious “disparate  impact” studies, to promoting the expansion of hate crimes prosecution, which he insisted was a largely white-on-black problem.

And then there is Eric Holder. Holder, who runs the most racially polarized Justice Department in modern history, wasted no time burnishing his racialist credentials, telling Americans soon after he was confirmed in 2009 that “in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” In 2010, after being stonewalled by his own department, Christopher Coates, former voting chief for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, testified that Holder’s decision to drop an already-won voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party was due to “pressure” from the NAACP. Furthermore, he corroborated earlier testimony by J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney, revealing that the DOJ cultivates a “hostile atmosphere” against “race-neutral enforcement” of the Voting Rights Act.

Holder also turned a blind eye when the Panthers offered a $10,000 bounty to capture George Zimmerman “dead or alive.” As for race-neutral enforcement of the the Voting Rights Act, as recently as yesterday Holder vowed to continue insisting that states “pre-clear” with the DOJ any changes to their voting laws. This represents nothing less than a determination to defy a recent Supreme Court ruling that effectively nullified his ability to do so. Texas is his current focus, but in a speech in Philadelphia, he promised that the decision to target the Lone Star State “will not be our last.” The motivation of this effort is clear: to portray red states and whites in general as abusive toward minority voters — as seeking to reinstitute “Jim Crow” through commonsense voter ID laws, as the Democratic Party propaganda goes.

Meanwhile, minority populations continue to suffer and grow disaffected under the reign of liberal policies. Majority-black Detroit is bankrupt. Chicago seethes with black-on-black gun crime, including 62 people wounded and 12 killed during the Fourth of July holiday weekend alone. Black unemployment is 13.7 percent, compared to 6.7 percent for the nation as a whole. The black American illegitimacy rate, one of the surest predictors of poverty, is approaching 75 percent.

You can see part 2 of this video here.


This follows Holder’s decision to continue pursuing the possibility of civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, without a shred of evidence for doing so, making good on a promise he first made during an appearance at racial arsonist Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on April 11, 2012. After praising Sharpton “for your partnership, your friendship, and your tireless efforts to speak out for the voiceless, to stand up for the powerless, and to shine a light on the problems we must solve, and the promises we must fulfill,” Holder made his intentions clear. “If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action,” he warned. To that end, Holder has set up ”tip lines” trolling for information he can use to prosecute Zimmerman. The “investigation” has now been ongoing for over a year.

The reason for fomenting this sort of racial animosity is transparently political. Just like in 2010, and 2012, Obama is determined to agitate and mobilize voters for the 2014 election and beyond and to weaken the Republicans with racial innuendo and accusations. He has tainted Democrats by presiding over the weakest recovery on record, one which is currently losing even more steam, with growth rates being revised downward, and one of the worst corporate revenue performances on record. The same is true of ObamaCare, which will be so damaging to Democrats that the administration unilaterally decided to postpone the employer mandate until 2015, usurping congressional authority in the process. This is to say nothing of Democrat-led foreign policy, with Egypt and Syria in free fall, Iraq and Afghanistan on the verge of reverting back to the failed states they were, Iran pursuing nuclear weapons absent any fear whatsoever, and both China and Russia signaling their intentions to fill the leadership vacuum the president’s “leading from behind” approach has produced.
Yet in his most recent speech on economics, Obama addresses none of these realities, preferring to blame the lot on Republicans (who have only ever controlled the House since 2008) and warning that if America fails to embrace his policies, “[S]ocial tensions will rise as various groups fight to hold on to what they have, or start blaming somebody else for why their position isn’t improving.” In the Obama era, this should be interpreted as an ultimatum.

It’s going to be a long, divisive slog to the 2014 elections, and racial division continually promoted by the Obama administration is guaranteed to be an integral part of the mix. The fact that Americans view race relations as far worse than they’ve been in years should surely be an embarrassment for the first elected president of African descent. Odds are, however, he views it as an electoral boon for his party.

via How Obama Poisoned Race Relations in America | FrontPage Magazine.

 Posted by at 5:56 pm  Tagged with:
Jul 262013

by Meredith Jessup  - — Jul. 25, 2013 5:15pm

Following a meeting with Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang today at the White House, President Barack Obama seemed to offer praise for communist revolutionary Ho Chi Minh as someone “inspired” by America’s Founding Fathers, the PJ Tatler reports.

During the Oval Office meeting, Obama says he and Sang “discussed the challenges that all of us face when it comes to issues of human rights,” referring to Vietnam’s sordid record on the issue. “And we had a very candid conversation about both the progress that Vietnam is making and the challenges that remain.”

When it was time to leave, Sang reportedly offered Obama a gift — a “copy of a letter sent by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman.”

…And that’s where things get dicey.

Obama: Americas founders inspired communist Ho Chi Minh

“And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson. Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States,” Obama said. ”And President Sang indicated that even if it’s 67 years later, it’s good that we’re still making progress.”

That’s odd — I don’t remember anything in the Declaration of Independence about prison camps for political detractors or the Constitution’s provisions about the systematic extermination of class enemies in a “red holocaust.” Would Thomas Jefferson have approved of Minh’s policy of isolation which left hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to starve to death?

Furthermore, does Barack Obama know anything about why the U.S. fought in the Vietnam War in the first place?

Sang, meanwhile, described the leaders’ conversation as “very candid, open, useful and constructive.” Swell.

via Obama: America’s founders inspired communist Ho Chi Minh |

 Posted by at 1:13 am  Tagged with:
May 252013

A new biography finally challenges Obama’s famous memoir.  And the truth might not be quite as interesting as the president, and his enemies, have imagined.

David Maraniss’s new biography of Barack Obama is the first sustained challenge to Obama’s control over his own story, a firm and occasionally brutal debunking of Obama’s bestselling 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.

Maraniss’s Barack Obama: The Story punctures two sets of falsehoods: The family tales Obama passed on, unknowing; and the stories Obama made up. The 672-page book closes before Obama enters law school, and Maraniss has promised another volume, but by its conclusion I counted 38 instances in which the biographer convincingly disputes significant elements of Obama’s own story of his life and his family history.

The two strands of falsehood run together, in that they often serve the same narrative goal: To tell a familiar, simple, and ultimately optimistic story about race and identity in the 20th Century. The false notes in Obama’s family lore include his mother’s claimed experience of racism in Kansas, and incidents of colonial brutality toward his Kenyan grandfather and Indonesian step-grandfather. Obama’s deliberate distortions more clearly serve a single narrative: Race. Obama presents himself through the book as “blacker and more disaffected” than he really was, Maraniss writes, and the narrative “accentuates characters drawn from black acquaintances who played lesser roles his real life but could be used to advance a line of thought, while leaving out or distorting the actions of friends who happened to be white.”

That the core narrative of Dreams could have survived this long into Obama’s public life is the product in part of an inadvertent conspiracy between the president and his enemies. His memoir evokes an angry, misspent youth; a deep and lifelong obsession with race; foreign and strongly Muslim heritage; and roots in the 20th Century’s self-consciously leftist anti-colonial struggle. Obama’s conservative critics have, since the beginnings of his time on the national scene, taken the self-portrait at face value, and sought to deepen it to portray him as a leftist and a foreigner.

Reporters who have sought to chase some of the memoir’s tantalizing yarns have, however, long suspected that Obama might not be as interesting as his fictional doppelganger. “Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs…significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use,” the New York Times’s Serge Kovaleski reported dryly in February of 2008, speculating that Obama had “added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.” (In one of the stranger entries in the annals of political spin, Obama’s spokesman defended his boss’s claim to have sampled cocaine, calling the book “candid.”)

Maraniss’s deep and entertaining biography will serve as a corrective both to Obama’s mythmaking and his enemies’. Maraniss finds that Obama’s young life was basically conventional, his personal struggles prosaic and later exaggerated. He finds that race, central to Obama’s later thought and included in the subtitle of his memoir, wasn’t a central factor in his Hawaii youth or the existential struggles of his young adulthood. And he concludes that attempts, which Obama encouraged in his memoir, to view him through the prism of race “can lead to a misinterpretation” of the sense of “outsiderness” that Maraniss puts at the core of Obama’s identity and ambition.

Maraniss opens with a warning: Among the falsehoods in Dreams is the caveat in the preface that “for the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology.”

“The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive,” Maraniss responds in his own introduction. The book belongs in the category of “literature and memoir, not history and autobiography,” he writes, and “the themes of the book control character and chronology.”

Maraniss, a veteran Washington Post reporter whose biography of Bill Clinton, First in His Class, helped explain one complicated president to America, dove deep and missed deadlines for this biography. And the book’s many fact-checks are rich and, at times, comical.

In Dreams, for instance, Obama writes of a friend named “Regina,” is a symbol of the authentic African-American experience that Obama hungers for (and which he would later find in Michelle Robinson). Maraniss discovers, however, that Regina was based on a student leader at Occidental College, Caroline Boss, who was white. Regina was the name of her working-class Swiss grandmother, who also seems to make a cameo in Dreams.

Maraniss also notices that Obama also entirely cut two white roommates, in Los Angeles and New York, from the narrative, and projected a racial incident onto New York girlfriend that he later told Maraniss had happened in Chicago.

Some of Maraniss’s most surprising debunking, though, comes in the area of family lore, where he disputes a long string of stories on three continents, though perhaps no more than most of us have picked up from garrulous grandparents and great uncles. And his corrections are, at times, a bit harsh.

ObamaObama grandfather “Stanley [Dunham]’s two defining stories were that he found his mother after her suicide and that he punched his principal and got expelled from El Dorado High. That second story seems to be in the same fictitious realm as the first,” Maraniss writes. As for Dunham’s tale of a 1935 car ride with Herbert Hoover, it’s a “preposterous…fabrication.”

As for a legacy of racism in his mother’s Kansas childhood, “Stanley was a teller of tales, and it appears that his grandson got these stories mostly from him,” Maraniss writes.

Across the ocean, the family story that Hussein Onyango, Obama’s paternal grandfather, had been whipped and tortured by the British is “unlikely”: “five people who had close connections to Hussein Onyango said they doubted the story or were certain that it did not happen,” Maraniss writes. The memory that the father of his Indonesian stepfather, Soewarno Martodihardjo, was killed by Dutch soldiers in the fight for independence is “a concocted myth in almost all respects.” In fact, Martodihardjo “fell off a chair at his home while trying to hang drapes, presumable suffering a heart attack.”

Most families exaggerate ancestors’ deeds. A more difficult category of correction comes in Maraniss’s treatment of Obama’s father and namesake. Barack Obama Sr., in this telling, quickly sheds whatever sympathy his intelligence and squandered promise should carry. He’s the son of a man, one relative told Maraniss, who is required to pay an extra dowry for one wife “because he was a bad person.”

He was also a domestic abuser.

“His father Hussein Onyango, was a man who hit women, and it turned out that Obama was no different,” Maraniss writes. “I thought he would kill me,” one ex-wife tells him; he also gave her sexually-transmitted diseases from extramarital relationships.

It’s in that context that Maraniss corrects a central element of Obama’s own biography, debunking a story that Obama’s mother may well have invented: That she and her son were abandoned in Hawaii in 1963.

“It was his mother who left Hawaii first, a year earlier than his father,” Maraniss writes, confirming a story that had first surfaced in the conservative blogosphere. He suggests that “spousal abuse” prompted her flight back to Seattle.

Obama’s own fairy-tales, meanwhile, run toward Amercan racial cliché. “Ray,” who is in the book “a symbol of young blackness,” is based on a character whose complex racial identity — half Japanese, part native American, and part black — was more like Obama’s, and who wasn’t a close friend.

“In the memoir Barry and Ray, could be heard complaining about how rich white haole girls would never date them,” Maraniss writes, referring to Hawaii’s upper class, and to a composite character whose blackness is. “In fact, neither had much trouble in that regard.”

As Obama’s Chicago mentor Jerry Kellman tells Maraniss in a different context, “Everything didn’t revolve around race.”

Those are just a few examples in biography whose insistence on accuracy will not be mistaken for pedantry. Maraniss is a master storyteller, and his interest in revising Obama’s history is in part an interest in why and how stories are told, a theme that recurs in the memoir. Obama himself, he notes, saw affectionately through his grandfather Stanley’s fabulizing,” describing the older man’s tendency to rewrite “history to conform with the image he wished for himself.” Indeed, Obama comes from a long line of storytellers, and at times fabulists, on both sides.

Dick Opar, a distant Obama relative who served as a senior Kenyan police official, and who was among the sources dismissing legends of anti-colonial heroism, put it more bluntly.

“People make up stories,” he told Maraniss.

via:  The Real Story of Barack Obama 

 Posted by at 10:30 am
Hello. Add your message here.