FAIR HOUSING OR POLITICAL BULLYING???

Recently, I was exploring the Whitehouse.gov site, looking for a transcript of our deal with Iran.  Before finding it, I was distracted by two Obama videos.  In the first, his weekly message to America on July 11th, he spoke about his new plan to make housing fairer. In the second, he spoke about criminal justice in America.   Next week I’ll talk about his criminal justice speech.  Today, a few words about the AFFH.  Here’s an excerpt:from his weekly video address.

“In some cities, kids living just blocks apart lead incredibly different lives.  They go to different schools, play in different parks, shop in different stores, and walk down different streets.  And often, the quality of those schools and the safety of those parks and streets are far from equal – which means those kids aren’t getting an equal shot in life.

“That runs against the values we hold dear as Americans.  In this country, of all countries, a person’s zip code shouldn’t decide their destiny.  We don’t guarantee equal outcomes, but we do strive to guarantee an equal shot at opportunity – in every neighborhood, for every American.

There is much to know about Obama’s newest program – the Affirmitively Furthering Fair Housing Regulation.  Author Stanley Kurtz, in an article for the National Review, gives the following example of one of its potential effects.

“…So if some Montgomery County’s suburbs are predominantly upper-middle-class, white, and zoned for single-family housing, while the Philadelphia region as a whole is dotted with concentrations of less-well-off African Americans, Hispanics, or Asians, those suburbs could be obligated to nullify their zoning ordinances and build high-density, low-income housing at their own expense. At that point, those suburbs would have to direct advertising to potential minority occupants in the Greater Philadelphia region. Essentially, this is what HUD has imposed on Westchester County, New York, the most famous dry-run for AFFH.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz

What the president seems to be missing (where do we start?), is that a person’s zip code is not the “opportunity” he implies that he wants to provide.  A person’s zip code is in fact, the “Outcome” that those within it have created through hard work, perseverance and sacrifice.  A person’s zip code can also be the “Outcome” of a life spent spewing hate, perpetrating, or ignoring violence, shirking parental responsibilities; or preferring welfare over work.  No, that’s not a universal truth, but it is one of many truths that prove it is not the zip code that determines a person’s destiny.  It is the residents who determines the zip code’s quality. Obama knows this.

I invite everyone to read pages 156 and 157 of his first book; Dreams from my Father. Here’s a few short excerpts that will give you an idea of what he knows. It should leave you with a question about what he is now trying to do.  Remember – his words:

“…With the passage of fair housing laws, they began to buy homes, one at a time, in Roseland and other white neighborhoods.  Not because they were necessarily interested in mingling with whites, they insisted, but because the houses there were affordable, with small yards for their children; because the schools were better and the stores cheaper, and maybe just because they could.”

“..when the blacks who’d now lived in their homes for ten or fifteen years looked back on the way things had turned out, they did so with some measure of satisfaction.  On the strength of two incomes, they had paid off house notes and car notes, maybe college educations….the better these children did, the more likely they were to move away.

“In their place, younger, less stable families moved in, the second wave of migrants from poorer neighborhoods, newcomers who couldn’t always afford to keep up with their mortgage payments or invest in periodic maintenance.  Car thefts were up; the leafy parks were empty.  People began to spend more time inside.  They invested in elaborate wrought-iron doors; they wondered if they could afford to sell at a loss and retire to a warmer climate…. conversations were marked by another, more ominous strain.  The boarded-up homes, the decaying storefronts, the aging church rolls, kiids from unknown families who swaggered down the streets – loud congregations of teenage boys, teenage girls feeding potato chips to crying toddlers, the discarded wrappers tumbling down the block – all of it whispered painful truths, told them the progress they’d [the first group of buyers] found was ephemeral, rooted in thin soil; that it might not even last their lifetimes…”

Two things are clear.  The first is that the zip codes in Obama’s story were products of the people who inhabited them – not the other way around.  Good people with two incomes who could afford to purchase homes in the neighborhood did well, sent kids to college and contributed to the quality of the area.  The ones who came after – who had not earned their way into the area, destroyed it.  In the process, they destroyed the lives of hardworking people whose homes reflected a lifetime of work and savings.  The second truth is that Obama wrote these words and must therefore know exactly what he is doing, in suggesting the building of low income housing in affected suburbs. Is this the future he plans for those who have worked hard throughout their lives?  Is this the fundamental change he offered?  Is this his warped idea of fairness and equal opportunity?  Is this his perverted idea of helping the poor, or is it merely a way in which he can shortcut the tough process of creating jobs, giving people a hand up and unlocking the human potential of those currently in bad “zip codes?”

All people should be – and in fact are – able to buy any home in any neighborhood in America, so long as they can produce sufficient cash, or obtain necessary financing.  It follows that they will be able to maintain their homes and will be welcomed additions to the area.  The use of taxpayer dollars to promote low income housing in more expensive suburban areas is likely to increase crime while destroying both neighborhoods and lives.

However, when Obama speaks of kids not getting a fair shot, he is right.  It is absolutely true and it is heartbreaking.  But, as usual, his target identification is skewed.  These kids will not be saved by a new zip code.  The answer will not be found in cut and paste housing, or in the redistribution of wealth.  The answer lies in programs that provide incentives for leaving the welfare rolls; programs that create jobs and opportunities, reduce births out of wedlock, promote skill development and higher education.  The single greatest opportunity for these children lies in our ability to control crime and to influence politicians, parents, teachers, clergy and people in general, to stop teaching hopelessness and hate.

The greatest hate crime of them all is to have disempowered still another generation by fanning the flames of hate and perpetuating dependency and a bizarre pride of victimization.

Who could possibly do it better than Barack Obama?

A House Divided – Part 3 of 3

Here’s some old news with continued relevance.  According to a March 25, 2007 Chicago Tribune Article: The not-so-simple story of Barack Obama’s youth, by Tribune Correspondents Kirstan Scharnberg and Kim Barker; and reporter Ray Gibson,

 “…one word Obama learned quickly in his new home [Indonesia] was curang, which means “cheater.”

“When kids teased him, Obama yelled back, ‘Curang, curang!’ When a friend gave him shrimp paste instead of chocolate, he yelled, ‘Curang, curang!’”

It appears that very little has changed since those days.   How many speeches have we heard in which Obama blames Republicans for failures in foreign and domestic policy, immigration, gun control, climate change and probably for dirty restrooms in the Capitol Building!  Remember his first year as President and the constant repetition of complaints regarding the mess “I inherited”  from George Bush?  Remember his reports on alleged U.S. abuses  to the United Nations  Human Rights Council?

Our memory doesn’t have to be that good, because he’s still doing it!  As reported by Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart, on May 11, 2015, the Obama Administration has once again reported so-called U.S. Human Rights violations to the United Nations including:

  • “Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
  • Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
  • Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
  • Predatory lending in home mortgages
  • Suspension of black children in schools
  • Women earning ‘78 cents on the dollar’”

Was this his “Cheater” list for the year?  Close your eyes.  Can you just picture this guy running down the street, looking over his shoulder and shouting at Republicans: Curang, Curang?

Here’s some older ones.  In his book OBAMA:Promise of Power, David Mendell says

“…white people from the better neighborhoods nearby walk their dogs down our block to let the animals shit on our curbs.” 

Was that a simple observation, a misperception, bias?  What do you think?

Curang, Curang – those damn white people again!!!

In the same book, he also made these comments:

“…Security guards tailing me as I shop in Department stores…”

“…white couples who toss me their car keys as I stand outside a restaurant waiting for the valet…” 

See something familiar in Michelle’s Tuskegee speech?

In what alternate universe does Barack Obama present himself as a person who would either provoke security to follow him, or restaurant patrons to throw keys at him?

Curang, Curang, America!!!

How many times has Obama suggested that police are racists?   In bringing a negative spotlight on police and fostering racial tension between communities and the police who serve  them, Obama’s is once again worthy of the title “Agitator.”‘

I guess it’s a matter of Curang, curang police!!!

At an April, 2010, speech at the Ottumwa, Iowa Town Hall, Obama managed to incorporate  his view of police into the discussion of a proposed Arizona State Statute aimed at immigration enforcement.

“If you are a Hispanic American in Arizona – your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state.  But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.  That’s something that could potentially happen.”

Curang, Curang Arizona – Curang, Curang again Police!!!

And of the Republicans stressing the need for border security, President Obama declared:

“Those aren’t the kind of folks who represent our core American values.”

Curang, Curang Republicans!!!  Curang, Curang Senator McCain

Sadly, if we are indeed a “House Divided,” President and Mrs. Obama seem, to be without a strategy, or inclination to repair what they have so quickly and enthusiastically destroyed.

President Obama has had possibly,  the greatest opportunity of any Chief Executive who has ever occupied the White House to make a positive and profound difference in the black community and by extension, in America at large.

He could have worked to reduce black on black crime.  He could  have  championed  the right of black children to attend schools of their choice.   Instead, for those in Washington, DC at least, he killed their best shot: the voucher program.  He could have lobbied for programs to strengthen the traditional family unit.  He could have encouraged and supported initiatives to help people climb out of poverty and re-integrate with the larger community.  He could have increased job opportunities for African-Americans.  He could have lead the black community in turning the page from an inter-generational sense of victimization, to new levels of economic self sufficiency and achievement.

He could have done all of these things and divided nobody.  Instead, he did none of these things and divided everyone..

Perhaps it should really be:  Curang, Curang Mr. Obama – Curang, Curang.

###

A House Divided – Part 2 of 3

….Recently, Mrs. Obama gave the commencement speech for the 2015 graduating class of Tuskegee University.  She warned the young graduates about the world they would soon encounter, saying in part:

“…They  [presumably White Americans]  will make assumptions about who they think you are based on their limited notion of the world.  And my husband and I know how frustrating that experience can be.  We’ve both felt the sting of those daily slights throughout our entire lives — the folks who crossed the street in fear of their safety; the clerks who kept a close eye on us in all those department stores; the people at formal events who assumed we were the “help” — and those who have questioned our intelligence, our honesty, even our love of this country. 

“And I know that these little indignities are obviously nothing compared to what folks across the country are dealing with every single day — those nagging worries that you’re going to get stopped or pulled over [by the police] for absolutely no reason; the fear that your job application will be overlooked because of the way your name sounds; the agony of sending your kids to schools that may no longer be separate, but are far from equal; the realization that no matter how far you rise in life, how hard you work to be a good person, a good parent, a good citizen — for some folks, it will never be enough.  (Applause.)”

I wonder if the history books will reflect that children from low income neighborhoods didn’t have to attend those separate but unequal schools.  They were sentenced to those schools by an Obama Administration that almost immediately after Inauguration Day, got rid of school vouchers in Washington, DC. (U.S. News & World Report online, Obama Wrong on D.C. School Vouchers and Hypocritical, Just Like Congress, by Peter Roff, located at:  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/22/obama-wrong-on-dc-school-vouchers-and-hypocritical-just-like-congress) 

I wonder how the disenfranchised children of Washington, DC and the Tuskegee graduates will perceive and react to life’s inevitable challenges and setbacks?  Will they ignore race, see things objectively, accept them with grace, continue to compete and climb the ladders of success; or, will they cling to the words of the First Lady, seeing a bigot behind every adverse event and passing  those perceptions of prejudice and hatred to still another generation?  Sadly, or luckily – I don’t know – we cannot look 20 years into the future to see what those not so small seeds of hatred will have produced over time.

As discussed in Part 1 of 3 last Friday, as a white man, I experienced the same type of  traffic stop in the 60s, that former Attorney General Holder claims to have experienced as a college student.  I couldn’t claim it was race-based. But, I can tell you that my so-called “white privilege” didn’t help one iota!

Does the First Lady really expect us to believe that she and Barack were mistaken for being “the help” at “formal events?”  Does the President really expect us to believe that white restaurant patrons throw keys at him, while he is waiting for the valet?  Well, according to guidelines published at University of California, under University President Janet Napolitano (you remember – Obama’s first Director of Homeland Security!), if we were students or faculty members at University of California, we’d have to believe it, because  “Denying the experiences of students by questioning the credibility/validity of their stories” is a “microaggression.”  I suppose that questioning a story told by the First Lady would then qualify as a MACROAGGRESSION.  …just sayin’

Other so-called “microaggressions” in the UC world now include saying that:

  • “America is the land of Opportunity”
  • “There is only one race: the human race”
  • “I believe the most qualified person should get the job”
  • “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough”
  • California professors instructed not to say ‘America is the land of opportunity’” by JOSH HEDTKE – UCLA JUNE 10, 2015 http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22839/

And, so  the drumbeat of divisiveness, painting pictures of hopelessness and a disdain for all things American doesn’t stop at the edge of the Tuskegee University campus, or the 10 University of California Campuses.

 

To be Continued…

A House Divided – Part 1 of 3

We’ve heard some pundits call Obama “Divisive.”  Why would they think so?   Well, let’s start with a  statement reportedly given  to Ryan Lizza of the New Republic, by Mike Kruglik, an early Obama mentor

“He [Obama] was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation….”   

O.k., but what does that have to do with divisiveness?

Saul Alinsky – author of Rules for Radicals and father of the school of Community Organizing practiced by Barack Obama – described the Agitator’s job as

“…first to bring folks to the ‘realization’ that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve.”

And what better way to evoke misery and divisiveness than by resurrecting  a historical tragedy that has long since passed its proper burial date.  As the Reichstag fire proved in 1933 Germany, creating a common enemy is a potent tool for consolidating political support and power – and is never intended to benefit the people whose lives will most likely be shattered by its effect.  Today’s common enemy is White?  Black?  Latin?  Police? How do you think President Obama answers that question?

Do you Remember when Obama said  that  the Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly and then followed that comment by saying

“…what I think we know separate and apart from this incident (Cambridge Police) is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.  That’s just a fact.”  

A  fact?  And the credible source is…

While visiting Ferguson, MO during the Michael Brown protests, with riots, looting  and for the innocents – fear – filling the hours of darkness, Attorney General Eric Holder took advantage of the opportunity to address an audience of local college students regarding his own alleged experience with police officers.  According to an L.A. Times article posted August 20, 2014, Holder told students:

“I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over…. ‘Let me search your car.’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff….” 

As police officers and members of the National Guard were putting their lives on the line to protect people and property – while cars and buildings were burning – while looters were gutting businesses that others spent their lives building – was this really the time and place for Mr. Holder to be giving this type of speech – to this kind of audience?  And, if someone died, or had their business destroyed because of that speech, who would hold him accountable?  Would people call for his indictment, or demand he be fired?  Probably not, because his actions would have merely set things in motion for another citizen/police confrontation and perhaps another shooting, indictment, riot – but nothing that would attach to Holder or to others who gain power and notoriety by fanning the flames of racism.

I had an experience similar to Mr. Holder’s – mine in Louisiana while serving in the U.S. Navy in the 60’s.  I was not speeding, but I was reminded that I was in a city that operated under French law and he [the officer] could put me in the jail and throw away the key – nobody would ever find me.  Perhaps, a little scarier than searching my trunk.  Like Holder, I was stopped by a white police officer.  Unlike Holder though, I happen to be white.

You may also remember when Obama  said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon.  Then, on Dec. 5, 2014, the President gave an interview to Jeff Johnson of the Black Entertainment Network, in which he further personalized the events in Ferguson and around the Country.

“When they described their own personal experiences of having been stopped for no reason, or having generated suspicion because they were in a community that supposedly they didn’t belong, my mind went back to what it was like for me when I was 17, 18, 20…”

He went on to say “It used to be, folks would say, “Well, maybe blacks are exaggerating, maybe some of these situations aren’t what they described.” What we’ve now seen on television, for everybody to see, gives us an opportunity, I think, to finally have the kind of conversation that’s been a long time coming.”(Emphasis added)

We should and must hold police officers to a very high standard and we should expect the best judgment, based on state-of-the-art psychological screening and the best training available.  Should we also hold politicians, judges and attorneys responsible?  Do teachers, social workers and parents also bear  responsibility for what ultimately explodes on our streets?  Should we also assign just a touch of responsibility to the criminals  themselves and to others whose behavior, while not criminal,  initiates the scenes we so often see played out with negative consequences.  Those who have read President Obama’s two books are aware of his provocative behaviors as a young man – behaviors that could easily have resulted in unfortunate confrontations.  Does his mind also go back to his own behavior and the potential consequences when he “…was 17, 18, 20…”?

Police officers are the uniformed representatives of government.  When police officers abuse their powers, or exercise poor judgment, citizens begin to distrust their government.  But, it also works in reverse.  When government is ineffective, corrupt, or abusive, the frustration and distrust of citizens is likely to find voice on the streets and in their attitudes and conduct towards police.  When President Obama and others talk about the need to improve relationships between police and the communities they serve, they should first also look to the actions of government and the relationship of those actions to the prosperity, freedom and satisfaction of the citizens they too are sworn to serve.

Recently, Mrs. Obama gave the commencement speech for the 2015 graduating class of Tuskegee University.  She warned the young graduates about the world they would soon face, saying in part:

To Be Continued…

The Good News – The Bad News

So, which would you like first?

I’m going to take a leap here and say that the Good News is that Our Free 50 is back. I hope you’ll agree.  You’re the reason.   Some of you have – after more than a year – still been returning to the site to check for new articles, or to re-read older ones.  I apologize that there was nothing new.  Likewise, many readers have continued to visit, or Like our Facebook Fan page – 203 Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama..  I thank all of you.

The Bad News is that Barack Obama is still President and will remain so for the next 19 months.  God knows what, or how much additional damage he can do to America before his term runs.  They say the first step to healing is to recognize that you have a problem.

It should grieve all of us, that our President is so far from this important first step.  Instead, with all the arrogance of a child king, Obama looks at the colossal mess he has made around the globe and declares with absolute certainty, that he has restored the world’s respect for America.

In our next few issues, we’ll revisit the strategy and tactics that Obama has employed to create divisiveness at home and chaos both here and abroad.

Look for our new posts every Friday, beginning .June 12, 2015. My pledge to you is that the writing here will be both true and accurate to the very best of my ability.  I’ll also try to keep things fast moving and as interesting as reality allows.  One thing I am not is a computer expert…or even a computer average – so, if you can think of some ways to make this blog better, friendlier, better distributed, etc., I hope you’ll let me know.  In the meantime…

Thanks for being here and God bless the Un-Transformed United States of America.

Business as Usual at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

President Obama was back on the golf course Saturday – obviously, deeply concerned about the people still suffering in New York and New Jersey.  That bit of sarcasm would seem harsh and out of touch to most Democrats, but given Obama’s handling of Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans, it seems a more than fair appraisal of what moves the needle on this  president’s “urgency meter.”

Still, President Obama has ticked off a few of his “To Do’s” since last Tuesday’s election.  He admitted, for example, that one of our unmanned, unarmed drones had been attacked by Iranian jets on November 1st.  For those that pay attention to such trivia, that would be five days before the election.  One can only wonder why it took so long for that news to find daylight.  In still another in the long line of fortuitous coincidences that have guided Obama’s career, General David Petraeus, Director of the CIA, has stepped down.  Conveniently, his resignation, based on an alleged extramarital affair, came days after (with no hint before) the election and days before hearings on Benghazi.  The affair was reportedly part of an FBI investigation  – Strangely, and apparently in violation of established protocol, not reported prior to the election, to members of the congressional intelligence committees.

As they say, “Timing is Everything.”

Then there was Obama’s speech on Friday, in which he noted in part, that

“…the American people voted for action, not politics as usual.  You elected us to focus on your jobs – not ours.  And in that spirit, I’ve invited leaders of both parties to the White House next week so we can start to build consensus around the challenges that we can only solve together – and I also intend to bring in business and labor and civic leaders from all across the country, here, to Washington to get their ideas and input as well.  You know, at a time when our economy is still recovering from a great recession, our top priority has to be jobs and growth.  That’s the focus of the plan that I talked about during the campaign.  It’s a plan that rewards small businesses and manufacturers that create jobs here – not overseas.  It’s a plan to give people the chance to get the education and training that businesses are looking for right now.  It’s a plan to make sure that this country is a global leader in research, in technology and clean energy, which will attract new companies and high wage jobs to America.  It’s a plan to put folks back to work – including our veterans – rebuilding our roads and our bridges and other infrastructure.  And, it’s a plan to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way.  Our work is made that much more urgent because at the end of this year we face a series of  deadlines that requires us to make major decisions about how to pay our deficit down – decisions that will have a major impact on the economy and on the middle class, both now and in the future.  Last year, I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars worth of spending that we just couldn’t afford.  I intend to work with both parties to do more and that includes making reforms that will bring down the cost of health care, so we can strengthen programs like Medicaid and Medicare for the long haul.  But, as I’ve said before, we just can’t cut our way to prosperity.  If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue…and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes.  That’s how we did it in the 1990’s when Bill Clinton was president.  That’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy.  That’s the only way we can still afford to train our workers, or help our kids pay for college, or make sure that good jobs, or clean energy, or high tech manufacturing don’t end up in countries like China.  Now, already I’ve put forth a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade.  I want to be clear.  I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan.  I’m open to compromise.  I’m open to new ideas.  I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenge.  BUT, I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced…”

I was once taught by a Psychologist friend that the word “BUT” cancels everything said up to that point.  You think?

I often find myself asking if it has occurred to others that this entire political conversation is a game that insults the intelligence of Americans.  On the one hand, we have conservatives saying that raising taxes on those making over $250,000 is raising taxes on small business and on investors who make small business possible.  I entirely agree with this premise insofar as those being targeted for tax increases are small business owners, or are investing in small businesses.  President Obama, on the other hand, seems to completely discount the argument and wants to increase taxes on everyone over that threshold income.  And as he does, he still claims that he will increase the number of jobs and attract new businesses.  This is counterintuitive and, I believe, totally false.  Additionally, it has been shown on several occasions that even if we taxed all of this target group at 100%, it would provide only enough revenue to run the country for a few weeks.  At the same time, it would necessarily eliminate business investment.

What seems to elude Harvard educated politicians, but easily passes the commonsense test, is that if this were a fiscal, rather than an ideological argument, they need only determine who, making more than $250,000 is actually engaged in a small business, who is employing others, and who is investing in the small businesses of others.  Extend the tax cuts for all of them and raise taxes, if you must, on the rest.  Make sense?

The truth, as any breathing person should realize by now, is that tax increases will make no positive difference on the deficit, or debt.  Whatever additional funds are brought into the treasury will be “invested” by Obama before they even arrive.  They will not be used to reduce the deficit, or the debt.  We should not forget that this president hasn’t even been able to pass a budget in his first term.  By definition, this means that there is no plan, because plans are funded and executed through the budget process.  He has increased the National Debt by more than five trillion dollars in less than four years – the most outrageous increase in the history of America.

If Barack Obama was a financial consultant, rather than president  – If he had the same record in his business finances as he has had in Washington – If the financial rating of his company had fallen as that of America has – If you knew he had been operating his company for the past four years, without so much as a budget – if his company was deeply in debt and still borrowing to stay afloat – And if you were searching for someone to handle your hard earned retirement savings – would you put your entire financial future in his hands?

We have.

 

 

Foreign Policy?

Apologies, Weakness and Death – an Eerie Correlation

Did the American Consulate in Benghazi need additional security on 9/11?  As a 32 year law enforcement veteran, I would expect that given the authority, most rookie agents, police officers, or military – enlisted or commissioned – would have made the call to add Marine guards on the anniversary of 9/11.  Both Egypt and Libya are countries are in transition and the area is known by all to be thoroughly unstable.  Imagine that we can put a billion dollars in the hands of a country our President says is not an ally – but, we can’t make the expenditure to move a group of Marines to protect our Embassies and Diplomatic personnel on a symbolic date in a volatile region.

Is the “Innocence of Muslims” responsible for the riots and for the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff members?  How about Obama “spiking the football” on the shooting of Osama Bin Laden – how about Biden taking up the widely repeated gratuitous and macho slogan “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.”[1]  One might logically think that this possibility is supported by demonstrators chanting “…we are all Osama.”[2]  The film maker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, has now been arrested and is held without bond, for using numerous aliases in violation of his five year parole  for bank fraud.  The judge denying bond for Nakoula reportedly based his decision on the belief that the defendant is a flight risk.[3]

Why are Afghan “Friendlies” killing our soldiers? When Obama issued apologies for the burning of the Korans used by Al Qaeda prisoners to transmit intelligence messages, “friendly” Afghan partners turned their guns on our troops, killing a total of six[4] and wounding several others in three separate incidents.  Following  this year’s 9/11 attacks and the repeated references to the Nakoula film, President Obama once again implemented his apology strategy.  Another eight coalition soldiers have since been killed in “Green on Blue” attacks – also in three separate incidents.[5]

Did Obama tell the truth about not approving the Cairo Embassy’s statement/apology before the attack on 9/ll?  Let’s look at the wording of the statement.

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”[6]

Notice the words “…to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims –“  This has significance.  Remember, we are talking about a president who wanted “Empathetic” Supreme Court Justices.  We’re talking about a President who called it his:

 “responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative

Now Available in Paperback

stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[7]

We’re talking about a president, whose first priority for NASA was to:

find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”[8]

Then there is the small matter of protocols for the release of statements on American policy in the international arena.  Would the Embassy have dared to make that release without his approval?

If Obama did not approve this statement, it certainly matched to near perfection, both the tone and content of “feelings” he has expressed in the past.  So, did he lie about not approving the statement?  Did he cause his staff to lie when they were all – Hillary, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, etc. – singing in unison that the Benghazi attack was solely the reaction to a low budget video ridiculing Muhammad?  Was it an accident, or more lies when their statements changed to acknowledge the Benghazi attack as a preplanned, coordinated  operation – as opposed to spontaneous mob violence – but his statements remained on the side of the video?

Given the totality of his past statements, actions and apologies, perhaps it no longer raises eyebrows to hear our president stand on the world stage and announce:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”[9]


[1] Rodney Hawkins (Sept. 3, 2012), CBS News web-site, Biden: We are better off, “bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive”, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57505234-503544/biden-we-are-better-off-bin-laden-is-dead-and-general-motors-is-alive/

[2] Posted by Robert (Sept. 14, 2012), Jihad Watch web-site, “Listen, listen Obama, we are all Osama” — Lebanon: One killed as Muslims march from mosque, stone police, set fire to KFC, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/listen-listen-obama-we-are-all-osama—-lebanon-one-killed-as-muslims-march-from-mosque-stone-police.html

[3] Amanda Crum (Sept. 28, 2012), WebProNews web-site, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Arrested, Held Without Bail,

Retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.webpronews.com/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-arrested-held-without-bail-2012-09

[4] Associated Press, (Mar. 1, 2012), FoxNews web-site, 2 US troops killed in Afghanistan following Koran burning, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/01/2-troops-killed-by-afghan-soldier-civilian/

[5] RT Staff (Sept. 16, 2012), RT web-site, 8 green-on-blue killings sweep Afghanistan over weekend, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://rt.com/news/green-on-blue-killings-254/

[6] NY Times (Sept. 12, 2012), NY Times web-site, Politics, What They Said, Before and After the Attack in Libya, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-statements.html

[7] President Barack Obama, (June 4, 2009), White House web-site, Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President on a New Beginning at Cairo University, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09

[8] NASA Dir. Charles Bolden in Elliott Abrams, (July 6, 2010), National Review Online web-site, The Corner, Is It NASA’s Job to Make Muslim Nations ‘Feel Good’?, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/232808/it-nasas-job-make-muslim-nations-feel-good-elliott-abrams

[9] President Barack Obama, (Sept 25, 2012), White House web-site, Speeches & Remarks, Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly, retrieved Sept. 29, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly