He Is Who He Is

He Is Who He Is

By Tony Blankley


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It’s getting tricky to know how to refer to he who presumes to be the next president. It was made clear several months ago that mentioning his middle name is a forbidden act. (Pass out more eggshells.) Then, having nothing honorable to say, Obama warned his followers last week that Sen. McCain would try to scare voters by pointing to Obama’s “funny name” and the fact that “he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills.”
Now, putting aside for the moment the racial component of His warning, what are we to make of the “funny name” reference? Many people have “funny” names. Some people think my last name — being very close in spelling to the adverbial form for the absence of content — is funny. Certainly, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s name is funny. Many on the left have had great fun with President Bush’s last name. But we all have found our names perfectly serviceable and would expect people to call us by the names by which we identify ourselves.
But He has made it clear that the mere use of His name would be freighted with coded innuendoes of something too horrible to say straightforwardly. One has to go back to Exodus 3:13-14 to find such strict instructions concerning the use of a name. Moses explained: “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” And G-d said to Moses, “I Am Who I Am.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I Am has sent me to you.'”
So perhaps we can call Him, for short, Sen. I Am (full code name: I Am who you have been waiting for).
Another aspect of the now-infamous dollar-bill incident that has gone unmentioned is Sen. I Am’s choice of the dollar-bill reference itself. He could have just said He doesn’t look like other presidents. Even that is a little too cute for the nasty little point He slyly was trying to make, but at least He would be identifying Himself merely with the universe of American presidents. But His overweening pride found such company too base and demeaning for Him. So He needed to include Himself in the grander company of George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Jefferson and perhaps Andy Jackson. (I doubt He had in mind Woodrow Wilson on the $100,000 bill or Grover Cleveland on the $1,000.)
Perhaps I shouldn’t dwell on these matters, but the more I watch this man the more stunned I am at His overconfidence and towering pride. I have known a number of great and powerful men (and read biographies of many more), and they surely don’t lack confidence or ego. But who among the great would have answered the question posed to the junior senator from Illinois a few weeks ago as He did? Asked whether He had any doubts, He said “never.” Is He so foolish as to think He has the world figured out to the last detail, or is He so proud of His intelligence that He cannot confess to ever having any doubt? Either explanation renders His judgment of dubious presidential caliber.
Here is a man who talked almost contemptuously of Gen. Petraeus. Explaining His differences with the general, He said that His “job is to think about the national security interest as a whole; (the generals’) job is just to get their job done (in Iraq).” Of course, right at the moment, the junior senator from Illinois doesn’t yet have “His” job, while Gen. Petraeus, as confirmed Centcom commander, has direct responsibility for both Afghanistan and Iraq and everything in between and around them. But in the mind of Sen. I Am, He already is, while He thinks the man who is perhaps our greatest general in two generations is just another flunky carrying out routine orders. It is repulsive to see such a mentality in a man who would be president.
All of us have our shortcomings, of course. But there is none so dangerous both to a man and to those for whom he has responsibility than the sin of pride. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great recognized that pride breeds all the other sins and is therefore the most serious offense. St. Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed that pride is rebellion against the very authority of G-d.
Let me quote a private e-mail correspondent, who states the case better than I could: “Pride indeed is the cardinal vice — it swings open the door to most of the other theological vices, and undermines the classical virtues of prudence, courage and justice. It thrives, not on what one has, but on what others do not have. And even when one has diligently practiced the most admirable virtues, there always lurks the danger that at some moment one will look in the mirror and say: ‘Oh my! What a wonderful person I am!’ Thus does the vice lunge from its hiding-place.”

For a man, his personality is his destiny. If he becomes president, his flaws become the nation’s dangers. The voters must judge carefully both the personalities and the ideas of those who would be president.

Obama’s Special Insight?

Obama’s Special Insight?

“Barack Obama�s naivete would make Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill.”


As the Iranian nuclear crisis continues to simmer, the question grows more urgent: would a President Obama really be able to wring concessions from the Iranian mullahs? Some think so — and point to a largely forgotten incident during the Iranian hostage crisis as proof.

When Iranian jihadists seized the American Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, they took sixty-six hostages. Fifty-two of these were held captive for fourteen grim months. Of the remaining fourteen, one was released in July 1980 after falling ill, but thirteen were released just two weeks after they were taken hostage: on November 19 and 20, 1979, the Iranians released thirteen black Americans and women. Blacks were oppressed in America, they said, and they were sympathetic to “oppressed minorities” — and as pious Muslims they did not fight against women.

Some are now actually arguing that Obama could succeed in negotiations with Tehran just because he is black.  But the hard fact is that the Iranians released the black hostages to manipulate the press and gain political advantage.  Obama’s race will give him no advantage in talks with the ayatollahs.  

Obama has long claimed that he would bring an insight to international relations that other American Presidents have not had. He explained last February: “As somebody who has family living overseas, who myself have lived overseas for a time, I would be able to — I think the world would see me as a different kind of President, somebody who could see the world through their eyes….If I convened a meeting with Muslim leaders around the world, to discuss how they can align themselves in our battle against terrorism, but also put our, the relationship between the West and the Islamic world on a more productive footing, I do so with the credibility of somebody who actually lived in a Muslim country for a number of years.” And indeed, majority-Muslim countries have greeted his candidacy with immense enthusiasm. One Indonesian Christian leader even said: “We are praying for Obama because we feel he can help reduce the widespread stigma and misperception that Muslims in Indonesia are fundamentalists.”

So maybe President Obama would carry two advantages into a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As one who has lived among Muslims, he would know how they feel, and perhaps they would believe that he, as a black man in America, would understand their grievances against the West. Perhaps the mullahs in Tehran would even be disposed to grant concessions to him, given their solicitude to the “oppressed minorities” among the hostages in 1979.

But how much hope can we really place upon an affirmative action program in Tehran? After all, the Iranian regime is not a champion of the oppressed, and Barack Obama has never been oppressed. Iran is constantly trying to portray itself as the victim of American and Israeli machinations, and these attempts are transparently dishonest. Recently it complained to the UN Security Council about Israel’s threat to its nuclear program – while never mentioning, of course, the oft-repeated Iranian saber-rattling against Israel. Iran’s Foreign Minister has called on Muslim nations to “erase” Israel, and Ahmadinejad himself has frequently indulged in genocidal rhetoric against Israel. He declared at the notorious “World Without Zionism” conference in Tehran in 2005 that “there is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world….Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury, Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

This violent rhetoric belies the victim status the Iranians are trying to claim, and places Obama’s claimed advantage in a vastly different light. Iran has been cloaking its belligerence as a strike against oppression ever since it took those hostages back in the Carter years, and the Khomeini regime’s release of the black hostages was nothing more than a ham-handed endeavor to portray an act of naked aggression as something that soft-hearted and soft-headed Leftists could support. Obama, entering Tehran for talks with all the good will his background and race would afford him, would only reinforce the Iranian regime’s hollow attempts to claim victim status — and thereby win a platform for concessions. And since Obama would really bring to the table only warmed-over Carterism, those concessions would most likely start flowing copiously — to the detriment of American interests and those of our allies.

Barack Obama’s naivete would make Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill. Any actual “credibility” he would actually have in Tehran would be based not on his experience in a Muslim country or the color of his skin, but on his readiness to grant concessions. And that readiness could put us all at grave risk.


John McCain’s WARM WELCOME To Sturgis Motorcycle Rally – With Video

Politico: Obama Has Stalled, Wild Democrat Dreams Hit Brick Wall Of Enduring National Realities

George Clooney To Host Hussein Fundraiser In Switzerland

Obama calls opponents of his energy plan ‘ignorant’

Obama calls opponents of his energy plan


Ed Lasky

A new kind of politician, a new kind of politics. A man on a higher plane who is going to be positive and talk about the issues. The arrogance and the insults just keep leaking through, however.

Recall the bitter small town people who cling to guns, the accusations that others are racists. And now if people critique his silly energy plan –which is factually wrong -they are ignorant.

Obama on GOP: ‘It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.’
“So I told them something simple,” Obama said. “I said, ‘You know what? You can inflate your tires to the proper levels and that if everybody in America inflated their tires to the proper level, we would actually probably save more oil than all the oil we’d get from John McCain drilling right below his feet there, or wherever he was going to drill.'”
(Note: that’s not accurate, as we fact-checked last week. But the larger point about energy savings is correct.)
“So now the Republicans are going around – this is the kind of thing they do. I don’t understand it! They’re going around, they’re sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is ‘Barack Obama’s energy plan.’
“Now two points, one, they know they’re lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they’re making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

Name-calling-how juvenile. How unpresidential.

Jim Geragahty reminds us of an earlier incarnation of Obama:

If you’re going to call someone “ignorant,” you probably ought to try to avoid repeating the misstatement that got you into trouble in the first place.
Remember when Obama was running around saying, “Now, one of the things I’m proud of at the beginning of this campaign I said, this is a different time. This is an extraordinary time. We’ve got to run a different kind of campaign. So we’re not going to go around doing negative ads. We’re going to keep it positive. We’re going to talk about the issues”?
Now his opponents “take pride in being ignorant.”
All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them. 
Barack Obama is right. We should not care about the color of his skin. We should care about how thin his skin is….

Obama’s ‘Lost Year’

Obama’s ‘Lost Year’

Ed Lasky

Barack Obama has been skillful at trying to deflect attention from slices of his life that may embarrass him or cause political problems. He has written two books and in both of them deliberately ignored his work on behalf of a weekly newsletter concerned with trading and hedging for profit. He may rail against Wall Street now (a recent ad touts that he passed up “Wall Street” jobs) but for at least a year he saw no problem promoting financial speculation for profit.

His first year out of Columbia in 1983, Obama was employed as a junior editor for Business International Corporation, a publisher based in New York. Obama edited manuscripts and wrote for a financial newsletter during his time at the firm. He mentions in his biography that there were times that he actually saw himself as a potential “captain of industry.”

No wonder he has censored this year from his biography-he might offend his left-wing base. 

Cass Sunstein, his biggest booster at the University of Chicago where as a professor, he was otherwise known for his aloofness from colleagues, goes to bat for him once again at the end of the Times article by rationalizing his year in the hedge fund publishing world (Sunstein, who married Obama’s once and future foriegn policy advisor Samantha Power, is the go-to guy for journalists looking to burnish Obama’s record).

While he addressed this year in his book “Dreams From My Father” in an elusive way, his account, according to those who worked at the firm, contains inaccuracies and misrepresentations (are we surprised?). Among them are Obama’s boosting of his own role at the firm and a depiction of the firm that departs from reality. The company were boosters for multinationals and helped to devise strategies for eluding foreign-exchange rules in order to maximize profits. Sasha Issenberg writes in the Boston Globe:
 They were boosters for multinationals and they thought globalism was the way we should be going,” Chang said.

But the publications for which Obama worked had far narrower interests. Written for bankers and financial executives, Business International’s money report delivered practical, if often rarefied, advice for eluding foreign-exchange rules that often limited the ability of investors to efficiently control their assets.

“If you’re just working on the technical financial points, the social implications are out of the question,” said Michael Veseth, a professor of international political economy at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Wash. “You’re just dealing with, ‘How am I getting my money from here to there?’ “
No wonder Barack Obama has given short shrift to this aspect of his career.