Old Crazy Joe and his friend, B.O.

The annual August 6 Peace Memorial Ceremony, 2012, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. 

At the end of his speech, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda says, “I would like to conclude my address by offering my heartfelt prayers for the repose of the atomic bomb victims' souls and my best wishes for the future to the atomic bomb survivors and the bereaved families, and for the well-being of all participants today and the people of Hiroshima City.”

Joe Biden steps up to the podium and, after the obligatory niceties, begins speaking about the relationship between Japan and the United States; he then offers a political caution: “Look at what they [Republicans] value … And look what they’re proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the military write their own rules — unchain the military.  They’re going to drop more nuclear bombs on you!”

What would be the world-wide response to that Joe Biden rhetoric?

Biden’s Danville, Virginia comments to a half African American crowd “They’re going to put y’all back in chains” was the racial equivalent to the above hypothetical Hiroshimo remarks.  And anyone who thinks for one minute that the Danville quote was just another “old crazy Joe” misstatement just doesn’t understand the Machiavellian racial machinations of the Barack Hussein Obama clan. 

The Administration knows that African Americans have been sorely disappointed by Barack and  do not feel the passion necessary to guarantee the huge black turnout and the 95% plus black vote that he enjoyed in 2008.  Since good cop Obama cannot get away with overtly inflammatory race speech, old crazy Joe Biden, the bad cop, does the dirty work.  And once the message has been delivered to the African American community, Barack disavows responsibility, plays down the significance of the remarks, and reaps the “firing up the base” benefits at no personal cost. Thus, when asked about the “put y’all back in chains” remark, Obama tells People magazine, "The truth is that during the course of these campaigns, folks like to get obsessed with how something was phrased even if everybody personally understands that's not how it was meant."

To Obama, as to Bill Clinton, where verbiage is concerned one can always resort to the "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is” strategy."   Barack Obama and his water carrier, Joe Biden, use words to manipulate, not to inform.  Their language is the language of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland who advises, "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."  If you do not agree with the Administration’s double speak, you must be mad, a Mad Hatter.

Obama and Biden care not one bit if their words stoke racial discord so long as it actives emotions that further the President’s personal, self-agrandizing agenda.  Obama et al know that they can say whatever they want, obfuscate around it, and ninety percent of mainstream media will support whatever rationalization they ultimately present.

Some African Americans, however, do see through the White House race mongering and are not afraid to say so.   According to the Washington Post (August 16, 2012), Douglas Wilder of Virginia, The nation’s first black governor, reacted to Joe Biden by asserting, “First of all, without question they were appeals to race.  The important thing I got out of this was Biden separated himself from what he accused the people of doing. As a matter of fact, what he said is they are going to do something to y’all, not to me. Not us. So he was still involved with that separate American.”  And the August 16, 2012 Daily Caller quoted Wilder as further saying,

The unfortunate thing for the president as I said yesterday, he doesn’t need this.  He doesn’t need anybody injecting race into a campaign in which one of the persons running is of a different race and that has been there all these years — the last thing Obama needs.

Like Wilder, The international media is coming finally to recognize Obama’s double standards, double speak, and double binds.  Detektor, Danish Broadcasting Corporation did a “mock Barack” segment on television showing that during news interviews with international leaders Obama used the phrase “strongest and closest ally” to describe our “special relationship” with each and every one of them.  He spoke those words with the very same cadence, inflection, and body language to characterize the United States’ relationship with Australia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, and South Korea.   

Detektor also showed the disingenuous Obama in press conferences with leaders from Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and the Philippines during which he spoke of those countries as “punching above their weight” in world affairs.  Barack could not be bothered—did not care enough—to give the country-specific compliments needed to show our sincere appreciation for each nation’s long-standing support. 

One also must wonder why the President chose the “punching above their weight” metaphor.  Could the statement lay bare Obama’s underlying condescending attitude that “little” Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and the Philippines are not quite worthy of his attention.  If so, it would be consistent with Edward Klein’s The Amateur that quotes Barack as commenting, "I don't know why I have to spend so much time with congressmen from Podunk City just to get my bills passed."                

The narcissist Barack Obama thinks that he is so far superior to mortal men that he should not be constrained by conventional rules of discourse and conduct.  He can manipulate racial emotions because he sees himself as a racial hero and guardian of the black community.  He can schmooze or denigrate foreign representatives with inauthentic banter because he believes he has a magnetic personality and knows just how to “play” people to get what he wants.  Should anyone disagree with him or with his vice president, Barack Hussein Obama states or implies that they are “folks [who] like to get obsessed with how something was phrased;” in essence, persons who do not instinctively, blindly understand and accept what the Administration says must be dumb, little, or dumb and little.   

P. S. Thanks to my friend, Tad, for sending me the Detektor link.  It is only a 3 minute clip and well worth the laughs.   http://www.youtube.com/v/erYpXzE9Pxs%26    

They Could Have Been Barack Hussein Obama’s Sons

When race is in the news, the President is quick to personalize it, if personalizing makes him sound like a racial hero.  You remember that in 2009 he said that white police officer Sgt. Joseph Crowley acted “stupidly” when he confronted Obama’s black buddy, Henry Louis Gates Jr. who appeared to be breaking into a home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.   Obama’s comments included thinly disguised racial code talk, implying equivalence between the Crowley-Gates incident and the much ballyhooed anti-police “driving while black” myth that we hear ad nauseam.  And, in 2012, Barack claimed "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,” referring to Trayvon Martin the alleged victim of George Zimmerman who the press called a “white Hispanic” to imply a racial hate crime.

Six months after Trayvon, in August 2012, we learn of a vicious assault against a 51 year old minority woman.  Although America has come to expect Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other raceketeers to perform their customary evangelizing against the racial wrong, we have heard nothing from any of them.

On August 7, 2012, Elizabeth Hur of Eyewitness News described the anti-minority assaault:

Authorities say a family friend found the victim in the backyard, on her knees, crying and begging for her life to be spared.

When police arrived, they found her room ransacked, cabinets emptied and the victim, an Asian female with mental disabilities, beaten and robbed.

“They hit her in the face with a rock, they used rope and also sticks and a potted plant,” Lt. John O’Hanlon explained.

Police say the three suspects, described by the victim as black juveniles, ran away with the victim’s purse. Police were eventually able to identify the suspects as 7, 10 and 12-year-old boys.

Since the perpetrators were black, rather than white, this certainly could not be a racial hate crime.  Could it?

In fact, black-on-Asian attacks are a regular feature of life in the inner city.  On May 2, 2010, C.W. Nevius  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Dirty-secret-of-black-on-Asian-violence-is-out-3265760.php#ixzz23ZHY2LFS  of SF (San Francisco) Gate wrote, Dirty secret of black-on-Asian violence is out:

San Francisco's hidden truth is out. That's what community organizer Carol Mo calls the realization that Asian residents are being targeted for robberies, burglaries and intimidation by young black men.

"It is San Francisco's dirty little secret," said Mo, a former Safety Network Community organizer in the Sunset District. "It's not news to us."

Hundreds of people marched into Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting to express their fear, frustration and outrage. But so far the response has been disappointing, particularly from the San Francisco Police Department. It seems intent on downplaying the role of race and its impact in the community.

The recent incidents of black violence against Asians is the perfect opportunity to open a dialogue about racism. Instead, they are attempting to close the door.

City officials, including the Police Department, say these assaults are part of a larger crime picture where gangs of kids take advantage of a vulnerable group of small stature. But Mo participated in a 2008 survey by the Police Department in which about 300 strong-arm robberies were analyzed. "In 85 percent of the physical assault crimes, the victims were Asian and the perpetrators were African American," she said.

We see here Nevius complaining about the pro-black racial double speak ubiquitous in America.  Unflattering, objective facts about black youth, in this case black-on-Asian violence, are hushed-up.  Persons who try to sound the alarm are ignored, or their complaints are minimized.  When the evidence is overwhelming, the authorities water-down the issue by framing it as part of a “larger crime picture” rather than as black racism, pure and simple.

The sad truth is that black males are being reared in a subculture that turns a blind eye to outer-directed racial violence.  Moreover, while the Barack Obamas, Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of American rise up in righteous indignation whenever anyone in anyway suggests that blacks could be racists, they endlessly moan and groan about the horror, the “national tragedy,” of black-on-black crime.

Barack Obama needs to mount a country-wide campaign to ensure that his look-like sons receive proper, continuous fathering against violence. Paraphrasing Martin Luther King, Jr., I suggest that his sons must be explicitly taught that victims should not be chosen based on the color of their skin.  I bet Asian Americans agree.

The Give-Back Scam

Humanitarian.   That’s what we call someone who gives selflessly to needy persons in order to promote human welfare.  Those who assist in order to extract some personal advantage and those who support their own family or friends are not humanitarians, of course. In fact, there is an implicit belief that the less the giver has to gain and the more remote the recipient is from the giver, whether geographically, ethnically, or socially, the more noble is the giving. 

Many inner-city-oriented “give back” guys are quintessential scam-artists—the antitheses of humanitarians—pretending to advocate for the poor.  These scammers care for no one but themselves.  Most often, the give-backer is a high-profile businessman, performer, or athlete, trying to escape social censure or legal indictment, intent on rehabilitating his own tarnished image, or sometimes the give-backer merely is after self-aggrandizement, cold, hard cash, or both.

Stephen Fried, Philadelphia Magazine June 2012, wrote about one such scammer, Tyrone L. Gilliams, Jr., and it is from that article that I take the facts cited in this blog.

According to Fried, Gilliams has claimed to be a mogul and philanthropist, literally comparing himself to Andrew Carnegie, George Steinbrenner, and Walter Annenberg.  (Perhaps he took a cue from Barack Hussein Obama whose propaganda includes references to him as a 21^st Century Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, to name a few.)  The piece explains that Tyrone had been a Penn basketball player, rap show promoter, would-be minister, and investment wheeler-dealer.

The investment wheeler-dealer role is the one that has caused Gilliams grief because on February 29, 2012 he was arrested by the FBI for wire fraud involving a five million dollar scam that included deception of an authentic philanthropist.  Among other ways, Gilliams allegedly used the money for “paying off debts from previous deals gone bad; more than $25,000 for each of his kids’ Shipley School tuitions; charging meals and hotel rooms and airfares and limo services; taking $50,000 cash advances pretty much every week; and eventually paying for all the Joy to the World Fest events, a tab of more than $1 million. He even paid a Chester video production company to follow him around for an online reality show about his life.”

World Fest, said to be like a “hip-hop Academy Ball,” was the “give back” scam that Gilliams sponsored and for which he enlisted a host of high-profile black big-shots.  Rap superstar Sean “Diddy” Combs headlined the event, but don’t think that he did it from the goodness of his heart.  Rather, he pocketed at least $100,000 to participate in helping the “poor folk” who supposedly were to benefit from the event.  And, like any good rapper, Diddy interjected a racial tint saying, “This is my nigger, he’s one of my brothers, give him some applause y’all, Tyrone Gilliams, he’s my man Tyrone.”

The Tyrone L. Gilliams, Jr. story, then, has all that we have come to expect from bimps: a narcissistically-absorbed protagonist who uses race to lift himself up by treading on the very same inner-city black people that he pretends to love, illegal activity, and, of course, hyper-masculine swagger, or, as they say in the hood, “swagga”  And, oh, I forgot one last quote about Tyrone from one of his supposed friends:  “He got a gun and a license so he could carry it and look like a ‘big dog.’”  Just as all true humanitarians do!

The Bimp Culture and The Colorado Shooter

The art of an epoch tells us much about the ethos of the times.  Baby boomer generation songs mostly concerned love and propriety.  We all remember Wake Up Little Suzie-like numbers:

Wake up, little Susie, wake up

Wake up, little Susie, wake up

We’ve both been sound asleep, wake up, little Susie, and weep

The movie’s over, it’s four o’clock, and we’re in trouble deep

Wake up little Susie

Wake up little Susie, well

Whatta we gonna tell your mama

Whatta we gonna tell your pa

Whatta we gonna tell our friends when they say “ooh-la-la”

Wake up little Susie

Wake up little Susie, well

Fast forward to today and we find songs like this:

Fuck You

(Chorus)

I see you driving 'round town

With the girl I love and I'm like,

Fuck you!

Oo, oo, ooo

I guess the change in my pocket

Wasn't enough I'm like,

Fuck you!

And fuck her too!

I said, if I was richer, I'd still be with ya

Ha, now ain't that some shit? (ain't that some shit?)

And although there's pain in my chest

I still wish you the best with a...

Fuck you!

Oo, oo, ooo

So, what degenerate would write or sing a song like that?  Cee-Lo Green, a black rap “artist” that Barack Hussein Obama has praised and who has been an Obama fundraiser. According to ABC News, March 16, 2012, Green even had the arrogance to start singing the Fuck You song for an Obama campaign event at the Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, Georgia.

The generational divide is just as stark concerning motion pictures.  The guy in the black hat now is the hero, the anti-civility and/or anti-American hero.  That brings me to the impetus for this blog: When I accessed the IMBd movie site—a site that reviews and rates motion pictures—I was struck by the contrast between the Batman (1966) movie poster and the Dark Knight Rises (2012) poster.  Nineteen sixty-six showed a photo of physically normal-looking Batman and Robin staring forward with bright bluish background, nothing sinister.  Twenty-twelve, on the other hand, depicted a black, shadowy, Kevlar muscle-coated Batman standing with clenched fists in front of an explosion; above him in upper-case font was written, “A FIRE WILL RISE.”   We find then that the “good guy” has become “bad,” and we are expected to regard that as good.

Twenty-four-year-old James Eagan Holmes, the Batman movie shooter, has been reared in what I call a bimp-oriented society that celebrates asociality and violence.  To refresh your memory, “bimp” is an acronym for black inner-city male persona.  A bimp is an aggressive, narcissistic, psychopathic-like, if not frankly psychopathic, gang-banger personality.  The media feed our children a steady diet of bimp behavior in the form of rap music and hostility-laden books, television, and movies.  Anyone who speaks-out against bimps is labeled as a racist, as though opposing bimps means opposing all black people.  In fact, some white people maintain the bimp demeanor and very few black people are bimps. It is persona and not skin color that determines who is and who isn’t a bimp.

I am not saying that James Eagan Holmes is a bimp.  I firmly believe that he merely is crazy, probably Schizophrenic.  But crazy people express their insanity in a cultural context.  Holmes has grown up in a society wherein violent, asocial bimps receive an inordinate share of attention; the Batman shooter acted out his psychopathology, either deliberately or inadvertently, so as to make the most of his moment in the spotlight, just as crotch-holding, expletive-spewing rap stars do.  

After all, President Barack Obama provided a legitimate political platform from which Cee-Lo Green sang his Fuck You song and got national media exposure.  And who could forget that Obama championed the political career of hate-mongering Anthony Kapel "Van" Jones, the Administration’s former Special Advisor for Green Jobs.  Van Jones’ own rap label, called Freedom Fighter Records, has supported racist criminals including convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal.

When a United States president celebrates uncivil and extremist elements, he sets the tone for the one-time violence that occurred in Aurora, Colorado and for the daily gang-banging and murdering that occurs every day in Barack Obama’s Chicago and throughout majority black inner-cities across the nation.   

Barack Obama: Failed Community Organizer, Failed President

How did half-black Barack Obama attempt to achieve the all-black “cred” required to pretend to become a black racial hero, to dupe the black community into voting for him, and to be elected the first inauthentically black president in United States history?

Community organizing.  That was his “thing.” As a community organizer, he hoped to charge into the south-side of Chicago, Jim Croce’s “baddest part of town,” to thunderous applause from the huddling masses.  With a little luck and a lot of self-promotion, he could set himself up for elective office and, eventually, for the ultimate elective office, the Oval Office. 

In Dreams from My Father, Barack Hussein, the would-be knight in shining black armor, wrote of his community organizing prowess saying he championed:

Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”

So, what is Barack’s community organizing legacy?  Where did he lead Chicago?  More specifically, how did the Altgeld-Gardens section, the city section of his organizing efforts, turn out?        

According to http://homes.point2.com/Nei, today’s Altgeld-Gardens demographics are as follows, where 100 represents the national average and the higher the number, the worse the crime:

Total Crime Risk            232 Personal Crime Risk       361 Murder Risk                    435 Rape Risk                        315 Robbery Risk                  411 Assault Risk                    299 Property Crime Risk       146 Burglary Risk                  135 Larceny Risk                   108 Automotive Theft Risk   161

In short, Altgeld-Gardens affords its authentically black, biracial, white, and other citizens the unbridled opportunity to be three times more likely to be beaten or raped, over three and a half times the chance of being the victim of attempted and completed crimes, over four times more likely to be robbed, and over four and a third times greater likelihood of being slaughtered.

Slaughter is, in fact, is the operative word when one speaks of Chicago, so much so that on June 16, 2012, the Huffington Post wrote: “Chicago Homicide Rate Worse Than Kabul.”  Six days later that same Huffington Post promoted the opening of an University of Illinois at Chicago's Jane Addams Hull-House Museum exhibit suggesting that gang bangers should not be treated too harshly. 

The exhibit depicted

…the history and impact of the Conservative Vice Lords, one of the city's most well-known gangs.

And that history is, perhaps, a surprising one, according to Lisa Junkin, the museum's education coordinator and exhibit co-curator. Though the gang's predecessor (the Vice Lords) was a notoriously violent group, the '60s-era CVL were incorporated as a non-profit organization engaged in the civic life. Nevertheless, CVL members were targeted by police during the city's "war on gangs."

Junkin said the exhibition, which features photos, artifacts and audio interviews with former CVL members, "doesn't glorify or demonize gangs."

"Rather, it challenges widely held views of gang members as unredeemable thugs through an untold story of the Conservative Vice Lords fighting for the life of their community," she said in a release announcing the exhibit.

Regardless of the way they spin it, the street, especially the street kids, undoubtedly will romanticize the Conservative Vice Lords and be drawn to gangs no less, and probably more, than they would have had the exhibit never been promoted.

Those who spearheaded the gang exhibit continue the Barack Obama tradition of pandering to the “they’re not criminals, they’re our children” corps in order to win the affection of the black racial identity slavemasters who reign over the 33 percent African American city of Chicago

If there ever was a place that showed Barack Obama’s mettle, it is Chicago.  He served as a community organizer there; he taught there; his political campaigns have been based there; he was state senator there from 1997 to 2004 and its U.S. senator from 2005 to 2008; he was married there; his children were born there; and he has a home there.  Obama’s buddy and former White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is Chicago's current mayor.

Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama has helped Chicago just as much as he has helped our entire country.  If he is re-elected, God save us!

Mitt Romney and the NAACP: A Classic Black on White Double Bind

It is July 2012.  In about four months you will contend for the United States presidency.   Time and financial resources must be conserved and apportioned properly if you are to have any chance to unseat the incumbent president. 

You are invited to speak to a group with the following characteristics: members never have supported your party; 95 percent, at minimum, voted your opponent into office; has a history of opposing virtually everything that differentiates you from your opponent; applaud uproariously whenever your opponent addresses them; readily admit that their allegiance to your opponent is identity-based; has within its ranks an army of campaign workers, donors, and officials with social, political, and financial ties to your opponent; seize every opportunity to praise your opponent and his party and to criticize you and your party.

Do you need to conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to decide whether you are best served by meeting with this group?

If you are Mitt Romney, despite all of the above, you do speak at the NAACP convention. 

What happens?  Surprise, surprise, you are booed and the booing becomes a headline for all manner of news media around the country and the world.  Moreover, the booing has been delivered by a minority group that repeatedly has complained that “the Democrats take us for granted and don’t address our needs.”   

I must wonder why the Democrat take-them-for-granted attitude persists.  Could it be that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al know that the NAACP does not decide political issues based on logic but identity.  As long as the Democrat establishment panders to the NAACP personalities, their allegiance is guaranteed regardless of the Democrat agendas.

So, why did Romney bother to speak at the NAACP convention?  For the same reason that George W. Bush did in 2000: He would have been accused of not wanting to be inclusive of the black community.

The implicit requirement to kowtow, at least initially, to the NAACP is a classic double bind, a situation that I described in my book.   Romney’s address mostly provided an opportunity for the NAACP to disrespect him and for their meeting to receive enhanced press coverage by doing so.  On the other hand, if Romney not made the attempt, he would have been explicitly or indirectly accused of being racist.  exclusivist, elitist, and unwilling to “reach out” to the African American community. 

Now, this entire explanation is well known to everyone, but rarely discussed.  And that is the most damning aspect of this double bind.  If Mitt Romney or anyone connected to him dares raise the dammed if you do and damned if you don’t anti-white explanation, he is shouted down as promulgating racist propaganda.  No white person in authority can even talk about the racial game playing, since merely talking about it is ipso facto proof of the anti-black racism of the speaker.  That is merely one boldfaced example why the black-white divide persists in America.  No genuine racial reconciliation ever will occur until white people repeatedly and stridently talk about the racial double bind that they find themselves in. 

Should Romney be chosen president in November, no one could blame him for doing what George W. Bush did after he was elected: He never again spoke at an NAACP convention.   

Calling All Bow-Tying White Boys

Most of us remember that in the 1950s a black man often would become outraged when a white man, stereotypically a Southern white man, called him “boy.” 

“Boy” is not a racial slur, but everyone knew that the word was intended to mock and otherwise diminish the black man to whom it had been applied.  The innocuous word “boy” is proof that words, in and of themselves, are not the issue; intent is the issue.  Back in the 1950s, the words boy and nigger were equally reprehensible because everyone knew what they signified about the speaker’s mind-set.  No one could have faulted any black man for reacting aggressive to having been called boy or nigger.

In 2012, the racist use of the word “boy” has evaporated because, unlike the word “nigger” that is kept current by black racists to intimidate and silence whites, “boy” as an African American slander is not used routinely by either whites or blacks.

So, I was floored when on Fox’s American Live May 3, 2012, black feminist and racist, Jehmu Greene referred to white journalist Tucker Carlson on live television as a “bow-tying white boy.”  More startling was when he replied, “You can use name-calling all you like” the cowardly Greene countered, “I didn’t call you a name.”   (This is the same double standards, double speaking, double binding Jehmu Greene that I mentioned in my book when she played a previous race-based word game on Fox News.)

Did Greene apologize to Carlson during the show?  No.  Instead, as is her style, she continued to interrupt and shout over him; another disrespect that Tucker called her on.   It was left to Megyn Kelly later to offer her regrets to the “bow-tying white boy.”

Imagine for one minute that an obvious slur had been white to black rather than the reverse.  What if Tucker had referred to Jehmu as a “fat-assed black girl”?  Would Carlson ever have appeared on Fox, or on any other mainstream news program again?  You bet your slim-ass, he would not have.  But Greene remains on Fox, unscathed.

While, in this context, the significance of “boy” as insult is clear, “bow-tying” is a bit elusive.  Presumably, its use represents Greene’s attempt to paint Carlson as a nerdish white elitist.  No self-respecting “real” black male would wear a bow-tie?

Maybe Ms. Greene should check the record.  Her main man, Louis, kill all the white devils, especially the Jews, Farrakhan would not be caught dead without his signature bow-tie.   And, according to Wesley Morris (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7346656/the-rise-nba-nerd), LeBron James and Dwyane Wade of the Miami Heat wear bow-ties, too.

We can return now to my essential point about racial slurs: it is the slurring person and his/her racist intent that are the real issues, not the words per se.  Jehmu Greene is a racially angry, racially preoccupied, racializing, and race-crusading black identity slavemaster.  In that respect, she is very much like her esteemed friend President Obama for whom she, and others like her, do the raceketeering dirty-work while Barack Hussein and Michelle Robinson Obama no-doubt howl delightedly and uproariously in the privacy of the White House, safe from detection and responsibility.

Poetic Justice for Mr. O

In my last blog, I wrote that the media’s favorite swaggering despot got a liberally applied liberal media smack down for his drone strike policy.  I showed that, for once, New York Times types realize that the I-can do-no wrong Emperor has no clothes.  As incredible as it seems, even they finally accept the inherent contradiction of celebrating Barack as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate one year and recognizing him as Executioner-in-Chief the next.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m fine with drone strikes, especially when they snuff-out murderous radical Muslim terrorists.  My complaint is with the President, not with the military strategy.  Once again, the issue is one of his dark-triad personality.  The narcissistically-preoccupied Barack Obama truly believes that he, and only he, is the best judge of who to kill and when.  He, no doubt, would support that arrogant contention by referring to his decades-long experience with military theory and practice, and to his supra-natural understanding of morality and philosophy in matters of life and death.

Although Barack Hussein being subjected to New York Times censure is sweet, however, even better is to see that the United Nations Human Rights Council also woke-up to Obama.  Courtesy of my friend, Don, who sent me the information, below is the introduction to a Whiskey and Gunpowder posting:

Obama sure loves killing people with his drones.

GENEVA (Reuters) - A U.N. investigator has called on the Obama administration to justify its policy of assassinating rather than capturing al Qaeda or Taliban suspects, increasingly with the use of unmanned drone aircraft that also take civilian lives.

Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, urged Washington to clarify the basis under international law of the policy, in a report issued overnight to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The 47-member Geneva forum is to hold a debate later on Tuesday.

United Nations Human Rights Council … United Nations Human Rights Council … United Nations Human Rights Council?  When did I last hear about that august group?

Damn !  I know where I heard about them.  That's the group that the Obama Administration tried to sic on the dastardly Republicans for trying to require voter registration.  That's the group that SuperBarack Obaman, the first, invincible, black (really biracial) immigrant from Krypton, held in high esteem as the arbiter of truth, justice, and the American, or perhaps international, way.  Eric Shawn of FoxNews.com wrote about the issue on March 14, 2012:

UN rights council delves into US voter I.D. laws

The controversy over requiring voters to provide photo IDs has reached the world stage.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.

So, the dark-triad, double-speaking President who tried to use a sham United Nations organization to attack voter registration laws, instead has become their target.  Moreover, the Human Rights Council is not merely investigating Obama for killing rather than capturing the terrorists.  Rather, Zamir Akram alleges that “Thousands of innocent people, including women and children, have been murdered in these indiscriminate [drone] attacks."

Can you say “comeuppance ?” 

The Identity President

Never in human history has identity been so relentlessly, ruthlessly, and successfully manipulated as with Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama. This man, mediocre prior to his presidential election, had no notoriety other than a phony racial credential; yet in photo and print, he has been favorably compared to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, even Ronald Reagan, to name only a few.  Yet, Barack, the “intellectual giant,” is the first president too insecure to disclose his educational record to public scrutiny.  Barack Obama fears that release of his education record will expose some unscripted, identity-related flaw. If he had something to celebrate, you can be sure that the President would have had it published in banner headlines.         

Obama, his self, and those who promote him, literally, have been trying to condition/program us into believing his identity propaganda through a kind of verbal saturation bombing.  Moreover, the strikingly successful misinformation bombardment has had world-wide collaborators. You surely recall that Barack Obama was selected as a Nobel Peace Prize candidate only two weeks after being elected United States president and as the winner, only two months later—all during a time when he was directing two wars.  Had the Prize selection been this year, the committee might have read the May 30, 2012 New York Times editorial explaining Obama’s latest Middle East peace mission:

It has been clear for years that the Obama administration believes the shadow war on terrorism gives it the power to choose targets for assassination, including Americans, without any oversight. On Tuesday, The New York Times revealed who was actually making the final decision on the biggest killings and drone strikes: President Obama himself. And that is very troubling…A unilateral campaign of death is untenable. To provide real assurance, President Obama should publish clear guidelines for targeting to be carried out by nonpoliticians, making assassination truly a last resort, and allow an outside court to review the evidence before placing Americans on a kill list. And it should release the legal briefs upon which the targeted killing was based.

Peacemaker and assassin.  If you are President Barack Hussein Obama, there is no identity contradiction here.   As we all heard during the 2008 campaign, the commander in chief is “comfortable in his own skin” and anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist or “right-wing nutcase.”  So, harkening back to great leader parallels, we conclude that Obama also compares favorably to other “great” assassins, such as John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald.  Now there’s notoriety:  Could Obama be like two great presidents and their two “great” assassins simultaneously?  On the other hand, the analogy suffers since none of the four ever won a Nobel.

Why so much obsession about Barack’s identity?   It begins with Obama himself.  As all conflicted narcissists, he always has been preoccupied with who he is and who he isn’t.  He, in fact, carves-out his identity by cutting-out identity straw men, often race-based.  Barack is not bi-racial; he is black.  If he is biracial, how can he claim to be the first black president?  Biracial is too complicated and too ambiguous for Barack Obama.  He reduces identities to either-or. 

So, when in April 2008 the President refers to working-class whites by saying, "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he really is commenting about himself.  He is setting up his identity straw men in order to rationalize and to dismiss “small town voters” as persons who will not support him because of their identities.

Barack Obama knows who he is and he knows who everyone else is.  He puts people in neat little categories, labels them, embraces the “good” ones, and mocks and marginalizes the “bad” ones.          

Barack Obama’s Self-Serving Propaganda and Policies Corrupt American Values and Manipulate American Servicemen and Servicewomen

In my last blog, I commented on the Newsweek April 16, 2012 cover story asking, “Is Obama Making It Worse? An exclusive Newsweek poll reveals the persistence of America’s stark racial divide.”  Unlike Newsweek’s excuses for the President’s negative influences, I concluded that the deepening black-white gulf has been an inevitable, malignant consequence of the Barack Obama personality disorder that underlies his policies.

Now, another, particularly egregious, example of how the dark-triad President attempts to enrich himself politically by playing on the needs of the vulnerable.

Like so many Americans, I was troubled to hear of the alarmingly high number of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans who have applied for service-related disability benefits.  But in order to understand the statistic, we first need to travel briefly back in time.

On July 7, 2010, James Dao wrote a New York Times article entitled, “V.A. Is Easing Rules to Cover Stress Disorder” that summarized the changes.  He enumerated the following salient aspects of the new rules:

“eliminate a requirement that veterans document specific events like bomb blasts, firefights or mortar attacks that might have caused (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) P.T.S.D;”

grant compensation “if they can simply show that they served in a war zone and in a job consistent with the events that they say caused their conditions. They would not have to prove, for instance, that they came under fire, served in a front-line unit or saw a friend killed;”

provide benefits “for service members who had good reason to fear traumatic events, known as stressors, even if they did not actually experience them.”

In essence then, the new Obama rules invited anyone who ever has served in Iraq or Afghanistan to apply for disability benefits.  And what did the potential benefits include?   Free medical care, free mental health services, and anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per month, probably for life.  Dao suggested that the program likely would cost “$5 billion over several years.”

Since I have conducted social security psychological disability evaluations for over twenty-five years, I had well-informed reasons to expect that the Obama-promulgated rule changes would precipitate a tsunami of disability applications, and that many, if not most, would be unwarranted.  Anyone with any experience with disability requests would have had concerns.  In fact, even Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia, a Vietnam veteran, felt compelled to caution his colleagues in the United States Senate about the need for more “practical, proper procedures.”

   

Of course, no one with a shred of compassion and/or gratitude can begrudge the military, especially war veterans, earned compensation for any real harm that they have suffered in service to us and our country.  I must admit, however, that I am shocked to hear that 45 % of Post 911 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are filing for disability benefits, alleging an average of 12 ailments.  Daniel Politi of Slate (May 27, 2012) advises that the number of current disability applicants literally is double the number from the 1990’s Gulf War.

Obviously, the Obama White House did not follow Jim Webb’s advice to include “practical, proper procedures” for implementing the new rule.  Rather, they saw disability benefits as offering an opportunity for political gamesmanship.  Millions of Americans had questioned Obama’s alliance to America during the 2008 election when he failed to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.  Belatedly realizing that political blunder, of course, he started striking the traditional pose—more to court votes than to express heart-felt patriotism.  On Memorial Day 2012, Barack said, "As long as I'm president, we will make sure you and your loved ones will receive the benefits you've earned and the respect you deserve."  Given Barack Obama’s history, should we regard that as a statement of affection or as a video clip for a re-election commercial?   Please note that Obama tried a similar tactic to rehabilitate his wife’s glaringly absent patriotism.  After being chastised for saying that she had not been proud of America until after her husband received the Democratic presidential nomination, Michelle Obama and her handlers blitzkrieged the media, advertising her as the guardian angel of military families.

Today, advocating for all manner of governmental benefits is a preferred Obama campaign strategy for winning votes.  But that is nothing new.  Barack and other demagoguing Democrats always have used “benefits” to manipulate the masses.  We sadly remember how their welfare society destroyed the work motivation and family integrity of poor people, especially of African Americans.  At this point in our national history, Obama is trying to seduce military types by attempting to buy them off, too.

                                                                                                     

The current economic context also is important.  In the midst of the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression”—a crisis that Obama ignored while jamming through his budget-busting pet projects, such as Obamacare—veterans are particularly vulnerable.  According to the Air Force Times, June 1, 2012, “the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the unemployment rate for Iraq- and Afghanistan-era veterans jumped to 12.7 percent in May, up from 9.2 percent the previous month.”   In such dire times, after all their sacrifices, desperate service men and women cannot be faulted for viewing disability benefits as something that they need and deserve; the Obama economy has entrapped them into looking to the benefits in order to survive Obamaland. 

Our Great Leader’s self-serving, manipulative policies illustrate once again that the character of a president does count.  Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama, a man whose personality is an amalgam of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism, has no choice but to do what he has programmed himself to do: target a vulnerable potential constituency and exploit, exploit, exploit.