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

‘ignorant’

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.

Obama’s Muslim Affairs Advisor Resigns

Obama’s Muslim Affairs Advisor Resigns

Ed Lasky

Barack Obama’s Muslim Affairs adviser, Chicago lawyer Mazen Asbahi,  has resigned after an internet newsletter wrote about his stint on the board of an Islamic investment fund and his involvement in various Islamic groups. 

He resigned only after the Wall Street Journal opened an inquiry into his background. He has refused to respond personally to questions asked by the Journal, saying he did not want to be a “distraction” (a term the Obama campaign has frequently used to deflect scrutiny. If one uses as search terms in Google the words “Obama and “distraction” 1,220,000 results are displayed).

From the Journal:
In 2000, Mr. Asbahi briefly served on the board of Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a Delaware-registered trust. Its other board members at the time included Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois.
“I served on that board for only a few weeks before resigning as soon as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board,” Mr. Asbahi said in his resignation letter. “Since concerns have been raised about that brief time, I am stepping down…to avoid distracting from Barack Obama’s message of change.”

The eight-year-old connection between Mr. Asbahi and Mr. Said was raised last week by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report, which is published by a Washington think tank and chronicles the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, a world-wide fundamentalist group based in Egypt. Other Web sites, some pro-Republican and others critical of fundamentalist Islam, also have reported on the background of Mr. Asbahi. He is a frequent speaker before several groups in the U.S. that scholars have associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Justice Department named Mr. Said an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. He has also been identified as a leading member of the group in news reports going back to 1993.

Mr. Said is the imam at the Bridgeview Mosque in Bridge-view, Ill., outside Chicago. He left the board of the Islamic fund in 2005, Securities and Exchange Commission filings state. A message left for Mr. Said at the mosque was not returned.

Allied Asset Advisors is a subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust. The trust, which is supported financially by the government of Saudi Arabia, holds title to many mosques in the U.S. and promotes a conservative brand of Islam compatible with the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and also akin to the fundamentalist style predominant in Saudi Arabia. Allied executives did not respond to inquiries.

Barack Obama has spent over twenty years living and working in Chicago. David Axelrod, his campaign strategist,  has spend decades operating in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics. As the Los Angeles Times and others have reported, Barack Obama had close friends in the pro-Palestinian community who he credited with influencing his views regarding the Middle East conflict. He appeared at various events sponsored by pro-Palestinian groups.

Alu Abunimah, the founder of the Electronic Intifada, has also noted Barack Obama’s involvement in these events.Yet he was unaware of problems involving Mazen Asbahi?  How did Asbahi come to be a key part of the campaign, despite his involvement in these suspect groups and activities? Was he not vetted by a campaign which has been praised as a crack campaign team? Or did Barack Obama just decide to throw Asbahi under the bus as he has so many others because these affiliations have now become a political problem and because outside parties have finally started scrutinizing Barack Obama?

Cracks beginning to show in Obama’s exterior

Cracks beginning to show in Obama’s exterior

Ed Lasky

If you don’t think Obama feels the pressure, check out his interview with the Las Vegas Sun’s Jon Ralston:

“I thought I was talking to you instead of debating John McCain, but I am happy to let you serve as his proxy. The fact of the matter is that I supported that energy bill saying at the time that those tax breaks were wrong but also recognizing that this was the largest investment in alternative energy in history,” Obama said.

Obama getting testy with a reporter whose only crime was mentioning that the candidate appeared to flip flop on drilling could mean that the pressure of the campaign is getting to him. There was no call to accuse the reporter of bias. The question is legitimate and the fact that the candidate’s answer was vague and contradictory shows that Obama has a real problem with keeping his lies straight.

For fans of the Truth-O-Meter, meet Politifact’s Flip-O-Meter, where Obama earns a “full flop” for shifting on whether to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

By forcing Obama’s hand on drilling, McCain may be giving him troubles on the left. “If he does really get behind this new compromise in Congress, I think that would be a huge mistake,” Mark Ferrulo, executive director of Progress Florida, tells McClatchy’s Lesley Clark and Beth Reinhard. Margie Alt of Environment America said in a statement: “We are disappointed to see that Sen. Obama has expressed openness to compromise on offshore drilling and the health of our beaches.”

Hot Air about Wind Power

Hot Air about Wind Power

By Paul Driessen
The Washington Times | 8/6/2008

T. Boone Pickens is being lionized for his efforts to legislate a transformation to “eco-friendly” wind energy.

We need to “overcome our addiction to foreign oil,” he insists, by harnessing wind to replace natural gas in electricity generation, and using that gas to power more cars and buses.

If Congress would simply “mandate the formation of wind and solar corridors,” provide eminent domain authority for transmission lines, and renew the subsidies for this energy, America can make the switch in a decade.

Mr. Pickens’ $58-million media pitch makes good ad copy, but his policy prescriptions would bring new energy, economic, legal and environmental problems – and a price tag of more than $1.2 trillion.

Wind contributes more every year to our energy mix, but still provides only 1 percent of our electricity – compared to 49 percent for coal, 22 percent for natural gas, 19 percent for nuclear and 7 percent for hydroelectric.

We can and should harness the wind, but 22 percent of our electricity by 2020 is far-fetched. Wind power is intermittent, unreliable and expensive (even with subsidies). Many modern turbines are 400 feet tall and carry 130-foot, 7-ton, bird-slicing blades. They operate at only 20 percent 30 percent of rated efficiency – compared to 85 percent for coal, gas and nuclear plants – and provide little power during summer daytime hours, when air-conditioning demand is highest, but winds are at low ebb.

Using wind to replace all gas-fired power plants would require over 300,000 1.5-megawatt turbines, covering Midwestern “wind belt” agricultural and wildlife acreage equivalent to South Carolina.

Building and installing these turbines requires 5 to 10 times more steel and concrete than is needed to build nuclear plants to generate the same electricity more reliably, says Berkeley engineer Per Peterson. Add in steel and cement needed to build transmission lines from distant wind farms to urban consumers, and the costs multiply.

Wind thus means more quarries, mines, cement plants and steel mills to supply those materials. But greens oppose such facilities. So the Pickens proposal could mean letting existing power plants rust, and importing steel and cement, instead of oil.

Since adequate wind is available only three to eight hours a day, we would also need more gas-fired generating plants that mostly run at idle, kicking in whenever the wind dies down. That means still more money, cement, steel and gas – and still higher electricity prices.

A successful oilman, speculator and corporate raider, Mr. Pickens’ large natural gas holdings position him to make billions from selling gas for backup electricity generation – especially if drilling bans remain in effect, keeping gas prices in the stratosphere. Launching the enterprise with the backing of federal mandates and subsidies minimizes his financial risk and attracts semi-free-market investors, by putting the risks for his scheme on the backs of taxpayers and rights-of-way owners.

Mr. Pickens says we can’t drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. That’s true only if we keep our best prospects off-limits to drilling. Open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf, and the situation changes dramatically.

We have enough oil, natural gas, oil shale, coal and uranium to provide power for centuries. We have a growing consensus that we need to drill, onshore and off.

Unfortunately, greens and Democrats refuse to support these options – no matter how soaring energy prices batter poor families, workers, Meals on Wheels, small businesses, and automobile, airline, tourism, chemical and manufacturing industries.

A single 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant would reliably generate more electricity than 2,800 1.5-megawatt intermittent wind turbines on 175,000 acres. Permitting more nukes would meet increasing electricity demand for our growing population and millions of plug-in hybrid cars.

Coal offers centuries of affordable, reliable fuel for electricity and synthetic gas and oil, with steadily diminishing emissions. Between 1970 and 2006, coal-fired electricity generation nearly tripled – while nitrogen oxide emissions remained at 1970 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution fell nearly 40 percent below 1970 emissions, and fine particulates declined to 90 percent below 1970 levels.

That leaves Climate Armageddon as the primary rationale for wind power.

Al Gore, James Hansen and various legislators claim fossil fuels are destroying the planet. But 32,000 scientists have signed the consensus-busting Oregon Petition, saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Other experts note we have far higher priorities, the economic costs of climate bills like Warner-Lieberman would be staggering, and the global CO2 and climate benefits of U.S. economic suicide would be imperceptible.

China is building two new coal-fired power plants every month, to power electricity-hungry homes and businesses. India too is charging ahead with hydrocarbon-based energy. Both are rightly more concerned about saving people from poverty than from speculative climate chaos.

It’s increasingly obvious why Mr. Gore, Mr. Hansen and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have become shriller by the day. People are catching on that their hot air is no basis for economy-killing cap-and-trade rules or ecology-killing forests of wind turbines.

We need all of our energy resources. We need to safeguard access to the opportunities created by abundant, reliable, affordable energy – from all sources – as a fundamental right of people the world over.


Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”