Michelle Obama's America

When Michelle Obama made her comments about feeling "truly proud" of America for the first time in her life, there were many who were willing to give her a pass. Apologists in the media were willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, signaling (again) that nothing the Obama's do or say will get much real scrutiny.

The facts, however, for those who are interested in such things (liberals are obviously not) -- is that Michelle Obama is someone who doesn't like America and is disdainful of whites. Her sitting for 20 years in the church of Jeremiah Wright is no accident. It is, rather, an affirmation of her beliefs that black separatism is the right course of action for the black community. If Michele Obama is carrying some of Barack's message of "change" for America -- whites should watch out. This is the kind of change that will lead to more racial division and hatred, not less.

How do we know this? Because Michelle Obama has said so in her own words. As Snopes.com reports, in her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama stated that America was a nation founded on "crime and hatred'. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were 'ineradicably racist'. The 1985 thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community' was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.

"Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms 'separationist' and 'integrationist' when describing the views of black people. Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a 'separationist' view of race. 'By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.'

"Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her 'further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.'

I guess that becoming First Lady of the United States is a peripheral job! And what kind of First Lady would Michele Obama be? The First Lady of all Americans? She writes:

'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.'

And, she gives what seems to be a "call to arms for affirmative action" policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.

'Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.'

"Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another. The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration."

Obviously, Michele Obama isn't going to be president herself. But if she feels this way and sat with her husband for 20 years in a church that espouses many of these same views -- is it not possible (indeed probable) that the candidate himself might harbor such views as well?

At the crux of this, of course, is that Barack and Michelle Obama are not agents of change, trying to bring a new politics to Washington. They represent the same old liberal politics of the past, and echo the tired old divisive racial politics of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and, yes, Louis Farrakhan. This is not change! This is just more of the same packaged in a nice eloquent suit.

Is this really what America in 2009 wants? More of the same old failed policies of the left?

Al Qaeda's Perry Mason Moment

Undoubtedly, the ACLU and other left-wingers who don't believe the threat of Islamic terror is real will rejoice in today's Supreme Court decision. In a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that enemy combatants who have never set foot in the U.S. should be granted the full protection of the United States Constitution. This includes the right to Habeus Corpus, which will ensure that every detainee at Guantanamo gets their "day in court".

For those who recall the fiasco that was the Padilla case (and does anyone remember O.J. Simpson?), granting access to the U.S. courts will result in an endless parade of show trials where lawyers for the defendants will posture and preen in a bid to embarrass the American government. And even more damaging, the rules of evidence will compel the government to disclose classified information to the public that may include critical "sources and methods" of the intelligence agencies. The government will then have a stark choice: provide the information that might jeopardise sources and current operations, or let the prisoner walk. We already have evidence that several enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have returned to the fight against American soldiers. If you are interested in protecting the American public, what kind of choice is this?

The Boumediene decision is indefensible -- both as a matter of judicial and public policy. While the court traditionally follows stare decisis (or precedent) in its rulings, in this case the court specifically went against its prior ruling from 1950 in Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, the court specifically ruled that alien combatants had no right to Habeus Corpus. According to James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, the reason for overturning Eisentrager was something of a technicality:

"The majority distinguished Guantanamo from the facility at issue in Eisentrager--a U.S.-administered prison in occupied Germany--on the ground that although the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is technically on Cuban territory, America exercises "complete jurisdiction and control" over it. Thus, detainees have constitutional rights pursuant to today's ruling only if they are held at Guantanamo."

This, then, will be the final straw for Guantanamo, which both Barack Obama and John McCain have vowed to close in any event. But for the remaining 270 detainees there -- all hardened Al Qaeda extremists or other terrorists caught in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the circus is about to begin. How many of them will be released to fight another day? Justice Antonin Scalia, for one, believes that it will endanger American lives. In dissent he writes in Boumediene:

"[Today's decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today."

The abandonment of the principle of precedence is hard to understand in this case -- particularly since the differences between Eisentrager and Boumediene are minute. This is a clear case of "legislating from the bench" -- the kind of judicial activism that is anathema to the strict constructionism that conservatives prefer from the Supreme Court. One can only conclude that the liberal justices on the court have a political statement to make -- that the constitutional protections for enemies caught in battle are more important than the security interests of the nation. Of course, most liberals don't believe there is a real and present security threat -- despite that fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, is one of the first detainees to benefit from his "Perry Mason" moment.

In many ways, this decision shows the vital importance of the Supreme Court in the coming election. For all the discussion in this blog and others as to the issue of foreign policy and economic experience, the most lasting impact of the next presidency will undoubtedly be who he picks to replace Justice John Paul Stevens -- the next likely justice to retire. While Justice Kennedy provided the critical fifth vote, the four liberals -- Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens made up the solid block in favor of this decision. Stevens, appointed to the bench by Gerald Ford, is 88 years old and will likely retire during the next presidential term. His replacement will determine the direction of the court for many years to come.

We all know the kind of justices Barack Obama will appoint -- those in the Ginsberg/Souter/Scalia/Stevens mold. John McCain is on record as wanting to appoint justices more in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom joined the minority in opposing the decision in Boumediene.

Once again, a clear choice come November.

Obamanomics

America, if you think things are bad now, just wait until 2009 if Barack Obama becomes president. You can take his recent comments on the price of gas to the bank: The Democrat nominee actually believes that the high price of gas is a good thing -- because it will force all you SUV-driving religious clingers in the heartland to buy a Prius and go green. Nothing like $8-a-gallon gas to change behavior. In Obama's view of the world, the less you drive the better, because it will lower greenhouse gas emissions and teach those big, bad oil barons that they better think of a new way to gouge us -- like cellulose ethanol or biofuel from kitchen grease. Nevermind that those hurt the most by this increase in gas prices will be that hardworking single mother who commutes 50 miles to work every day for her $35,000 a year job. Wait, isn't she a member of the Democrat's core voting base?

Obamanomics will strangle the economy and put us deep into a recession. Because in addition to his regressive tax policy, he'll burden the economy with more spending and more regulation. It has been proven over and over again that you can't tax and spend your way out of an economic slowdown -- it just doesn't work. In fact, over the long run, higher taxes never lead to greater economic growth. Higher taxes are a disincentive to work more, earn more and invest more. Why is that basic human nature so difficult for Democrats to understand? Is it because they always believe that the ends -- providing for the poor, the needy and the unemployed -- is more important that taking care of those who actually work and pay the taxes?

A recent editorial by the Investors Business Daily seems to reinforce this latter view:

"Make no mistake: This tax hike is gargantuan. Simply by not making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, taxes will rise by a minimum of $2.8 trillion between now and 2018.”

The IBD says that if the tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010:

-- Spending will rise by half a trillion dollars over the next five years. And the Democrats will pay for it by raising taxes by $683 billion — “the biggest such increase ever.”

-- About 48 million married couples — “the heart of the middle class that Democrats say they want to help” — will see an average annual tax increase of $3,007.

-- The tax bill for the elderly will rise $2,181 a year on average.

-- A single parent with two children earning $30,000 a year will see a tax hike of $1,600.

-- A family of four earning $50,000 a year will be hit with a tax increase of 191 percent.

-- The 2009 budget for the first time ever spends $1 trillion on discretionary items — non-defense, non-entitlement.

“This is a foretaste of future fiscal recklessness under a Barack Obama presidency (he voted for the bill),” the IBD observes.

Noting that the budget would weaken the economy and kill job growth, the IBD concludes: “This is supply-side economics in reverse — creating massive disincentives to work, save and invest, and shrinking the pie.”

So, the Democrats and Obama say they are for the "little guy" and want to end the "tax cuts for the rich". Never mind that the "rich" include the millions of small businesses out there that make more than $250,000 per year and employ (literally) tens-of-millions of people. Ending the Bush tax cuts will increase taxes in all income brackets, will create a disincentive for investment and will reinstate a confiscatory "death tax" of 55% on assets in excess of $1 million. Do people with assets in excess of $1 million deserve to have 55 cents of every additional dollar returned back to the government -- which has already taxed that dollar when it was earned? Is that fair in any way?

It is if you are Barack Obama, who is happy to take your money so he can give it to someone he deems more needy. Classic redistributive economic policy that any socialist would be proud of.

The Clearest Choice: The Next Commander in Chief

Recent polls suggest that the most important thing on the minds of Americans today is the economy -- which on a daily basis, with gasoline and food prices at all time highs, is understandable. When you go to the polls to vote for Congress, that's a great thing to focus on; it is Congress that has the "power of the purse" and that has been spending our money with reckless abandon, preventing further domestic oil drilling and distorting food prices with the Farm Bill and other hand-outs. When it comes to Congress, you should vote your pocketbook.

But, when it comes to the presidency, focusing on the economy is folly. Why? Because the president has limited powers when it comes to economic matters. As head of the Executive Branch, he proposes a fiscal budget and has the power of the veto -- but that's really it. He doesn't pass legislation, doesn't load spending bills with pork, and doesn't work on behalf of constituents to fund "pet projects".

The president's main job is in the realm of foreign policy. He sets the country's foreign policy agenda, acts as the nation's "chief diplomat". And he serves as the U.S. military's Commander in Chief. As the Commander in Chief, he makes the ultimate decisions on how and when to use military force. Budgets come and go, and rarely is a president remembered for his limited actions on the domestic front. But whether it is FDR and Truman in WW II and Korea, JFK and LBJ in Vietnam, Reagan in Grenada, Bush 41 in Panama and Desert Storm, Clinton in Kosovo and now Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, presidents are always remembered for their actions as Commander in Chief. In many ways it is the only reason to vote for anyone to be president.

Which makes the choice in this election so stark. The choice on this criteria between John McCain, a foreign policy expert and war hero, and Barack Obama, a neophyte one term United States Senator is pretty clear. Take their response in 2006 to the failing war in Iraq. McCain, who had been calling for the surge since 2004, publicly called a change in strategy in a speech entitled "Choosing Victory" (1/5/2007): more troops on the ground, a more active role in the "clear, hold and build" strategy central to a counterinsurgency. He called for "the surge" before the surge was even being contemplated by the Bush administration. Now that we are on the verge of victory in Iraq, McCain's mock "Commander in Chief" decision was both unpopular, bold and ultimately correct.

And what of Barack Obama? While McCain was choosing victory, Obama was choosing defeat, introducing the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007" (1/30/2007). Obama, who hasn't been to Iraq since January, 2006, had long decided that the war was lost. He publicly predicted the surge would fail, citing the fact that Iraq was now in "civil war", and refused subsequently -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary, to admit that the strategy of General Patraeus and U.S. forces was actually working. Even as a candidate and would-be Commander in Chief, Obama couldn't bring himself to give the troops he seeks to command the plaudits they so richly deserve.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the video below of Obama speaking about how he intends to gut the defense budget and cancel needed weapons systems. If you believe (as I do) that there is a real and present danger out their from Islamic terror, and that the recent moves in Russia and China alarming, you will be very worried indeed that this man may be the next president.

How Obama Can Show He Supports Israel: Win in Iraq

One of the first speeches that Barack Obama gave after becoming the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party was to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In this speech, delivered on June 4, 2008, he began the difficult transformation of going from left-wing dove to progressive hawk. It is axiomatic that every nominee of both parties plays to their partisan base in the primaries and then tacks back to the "center" for the general election. In the case of Barack Obama, who has had tremendous success pandering to the lefty's of his party, this tack will have to be something close to a sharp right turn.

It will be exceedingly difficult for Obama to do -- something that was made abundantly clear in his speech to AIPAC. For Obama to be a credible Commander in Chief that is interested in protecting America's interests in the Middle East, he will have to become a close friend and abiding ally of Israel. Why? Because even with the nascent democracy in Iraq, Israel remains both the only thriving capitalist democracy in the Arab world and our only true politico-military ally. The U.S.-Israel alliance has been the cornerstone of our Mid East foreign policy since the late 1960s, and American Jews remain a powerful (if reliably Democrat) voting block. The speech to AIPAC was Obama's chance to show his bona fides in his support for Israel. Not surprisingly, the speech centered on the growing threat of Iran in the region.

Why Iran? Because Iran remains the single most pressing security threat to both Israel and Iraq. The Mullahs have been proactively building a nuclear bomb and the missile technology to deliver it, and with a range that is capable of striking both Baghdad and Jerusalem. They have been sending weapons into Iraq with impunity, and those weapons have been used to kill both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians with lethal effectiveness. They actively support Hezbollah which has been fighting the Israeli army along the Lebanon border and which has been indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel. In short, Iran -- even without nuclear weapons -- is fighting an active war against both the U.S. and Israel in the region.

So, how did Obama do at AIPAC? If you are a fan of more diplomacy, Obama did very well indeed. Obama began with a strong statement that sounded well, hawkish:

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat".

So far, so good. Unfortunately, what followed this was plenty of grist for the idealists in the audience. Obama's approach to this "grave" threat of Iran is -- you guessed it -- an "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions":

"We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. (I am) willing to lead a tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if -- and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."

And what would Obama say to the "appropriate Iranian leader"? He'd apparently offer up (again) the same carrots that the Bush Administration and the Europeans have been dangling for the past four years: lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community.

Has Barack Obama been asleep for the past few decades? Yes, I know, sitting in the Reverend Wright's church for 20 years can certainly numb the mind. But this is an incredibly naive response and a testament to his inexperience. He just -- to coin a phrase -- "doesn't get it". The Iranian regime is a revolutionary government. By definition revolutionary regimes don't seek accommodation with the existing order, they seek its destruction. The Mullahs in Iran seek not just the destruction of Israel but a return to the caliphate -- an Islamic social and political order that is 100% antithetical to the existing "international community". It is, thus, no surprise that the Iranian's are not interested in all the myriad concessions that the Europeans and Condoleeza Rice have been offering. What they are seeking isn't negotiable.

Of course, Obama has his own non-negotiables, namely in leaving Iraq as quickly as possible -- even in the face of the obvious success of the surge, the recent declaration by CIA Director Hayden that we are near a "near strategic defeat of Al Qaeda there, and the growing clout of the Maliki government. At AIPAC, Obama again called for the "responsible phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq", though he neglected to explain just how this would help Israel. Presumably, in Obama's view of the world, the retreat from Iraq would somehow signal the Iranians that we really "mean business" and represent a force to be reckoned with. Huh? As Mathew Continetti writes in the Weekly Standard, this policy would

"Erase the security and political gains the United States and its Iraqi allies have made in the last 18 months. It would lead to more violence, not less, and to a weaker Iraqi government, not a stronger one. It would breathe new life into the radicals -- many sponsored by the Iranian regime -- who seek a failed state in Iraq. And Tehran would quickly move to fill any power vacuum that the Americans left behind in Iraq."

Beyond the obvious fact that this would hurt America and help Iran, it would actually be devastating to Israel. I know that this position is not "en vogue" among American Jews, who lean heavily left, but the best thing that America could do to protect and support Israel is to win decisively in Iraq. The total defeat of Al Qaeda and of the radical Shiite forces there, the expulsion of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the presence of a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East -- are all part and parcel to Israel's security. In contrast, our retreat and ultimate defeat in Iraq -- and the attendant fall of the Iraqi government -- will lead to a devastating vacuum in the region that will further threaten Israel.

American Jews should understand clearly this: If you support Israel, you should be wary of a candidate pushing the tired line of diplomacy with a regime that doesn't negotiate. And you need to vote for victory in Iraq in November.

Is Obama Fit to be President?

On Saturday, twenty years on, Barack Obama finally made a break with his church and Jeremiah Wright. The decision to leave the Trinity Church came, fittingly, after a visiting pastor, Michael Pfleger, used his sermon to denounce Hillary Clinton as a "white elitist" who felt entitled to the presidential nomination. Pfleger, who himself is white, is another radical leftist preacher who routinely spews hate speech from the pulpit. Here's his sermon from the pulpit at Obama's church recently:

For Barack this was apparently the last straw. As the presumptive Democrat nominee for president, Obama can't be seen as associating with such angry racists. It doesn't comport with his "post-racial, post-partisan" mantra. And besides, its not really becoming of someone who has a better-than-even-money chance to become the next president of the United States.

In his statement, Obama had this to say:

“I’m not denouncing the church and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce the church,” he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and “the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them.”

“It’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long held views, statements and principles,” he said. Obama said he had “no idea” how the resignation would “impact my presidential campaign, but I know its the right thing to do for the church and our family.”

“This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it,” he said.

Now that's a hoot -- for this is one personal decision that is political to the core. For 20 years, Barack and Michelle Obama, accompanied by their two children, listened to Reverend Wright and his cohorts extoll the evilness of America. More importantly, Obama steeped himself in the black politico-religious subculture that these churches expound, based principally on black liberation theology. This is reinforced in a recent article by Stanley Kurtz entitled "Obama's Radical-Left Ties Deep and Broad" in the National Review Online:

Obama’s ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we’ve realized up to now. On Obama’s own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago’s most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn’t want Trinity’s political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.

For Obama, this represents both a personal and professional interest -- a means of tapping into the anger and hatred on the left as a way of finding a base of power in Chicago:

So Obama’s political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama’s ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama’s religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism.

Barack Obama has now left his church largely because the political calculus has now changed. The engine of power that was Trinity church in Chicago has become an embarrassing liability to the now-national candidate. The white voters in West Virginia just don't understand the kind of anger and vitriol that is commonplace in the black community, polarized as it is by the politics of victimization. It simply doesn't play in Peoria -- even it it plays nicely on the South Side of Chicago.

Now, on the eve of the Democrat nomination for president, we are faced with yet another cold political calculation by a politician who, for all his grace, has a clumsiness about his candidacy that leaves one wondering about his fitness and judgement to be president.

Memorial Day

Many of you may recall a post I did about Sgt. Nick Walsh, a United States Marine from Fort Collins, Colorado. Sgt. Walsh was killed one year ago today in Iraq. For those of you who wish to re-read it, I've linked to it again here "Semper Fi". It's worth another read, if only to remind us about what Memorial Day is all about -- not shopping malls and movies, but the real sacrifice of young Americans who are willing to go in harms way for our freedom.

And, from the blog of Michael Yon, comes this e-mail tribute to SPC David Lee Leimbach who was killed yesterday in Afghanistan. The e-mail was written by Command Sergeant Major Jeff Mellinger, a veteran of almost three years of continuous service in Iraq, who is now "walking the line" in Afghanistan.
_____________________________

Afghanistan

This morning at 0600, we paid final respects to SPC David Lee Leimbach, a Taylor, South Carolina, National Guard soldier killed yesterday in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Just before 0500, an announcement came across the Bagram Airfield PA system for everyone to dress in their combat uniforms and assemble along the road which cuts through the middle of Bagram Air Base.

Little by little, troops from all services and many coalition countries began lining the main street of the base. They stood literally shoulder to shoulder on both sides of the road for nearly a mile.

At about 0530, a USAF C-17 landed (ironically from Charleston, SC), taxied, pulled into a space in front of the formed troops, turning its tail towards them. The ramp dropped, the engines shut down, the crew disembarked and lined up in front of the plane. All down the flight line, warriors stood at parade rest; talking and whispering stopped.

At 0600 on this bright, sunny day, the vehicle bearing the casket, having completed its drive from the mortuary to the airfield, turned onto the airfield. A single soldier walked in front of the vehicle to lead the way.

Along the road leading to the airfield, the troops that lined the road were standing at attention and saluting. On the airfield you could only hear the birds flitting around. In the distance were the sounds of aircraft flying their missions.

Now, the troops on the airfield came to attention and saluted as a bagpipe played Amazing Grace. The color guard moved into position, and those of us assembled near the plane came to attention and saluted.

Two cameramen ran ahead of the vehicle, recording the entire procession, and now the unloading and movement of the casket.

The casket, carried by soldiers of the unit, moved forward to the plane. The band played My Country, Tis of Thee. The casket was loaded on the plane, the senior personnel present (to include five general officers) walked onto the plane behind the casket, and final prayers and remarks were made, then those leaders and casket bearers disembarked.

As the assembled began to move from the site, the crew embarked, the ramp closed, the C-17 taxied and took off, and the fight continued.

I hope the family of this warrior knows that we loved him, too. From every mountain side, let freedom ring!
____________________________

God Bless all those warriors walking the line tonight in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world tonight...I pray for you all.