President Obama: Cool and Moderate or Cold and Radical?

Sean Hannity recently interviewed Rush Limbaugh on his program "Hannity." In their analysis of President Obama, Limbaugh used the word “cold” in describing the president. Whereas, Hannity stated that Obama is “radical.” A cold radical with a smooth persona is a dangerous blend but unfortunately the title appears to apply to the man occupying the White House.

During the presidential campaign the words “cold” and “radical” were not used to describe Obama by media figures even from the right side of the news aisle.

During the campaign the major news media were able to disconnect the far left radicalism of Obama’s mentors and associates from the ready-for-prime-time image of Obama. The parting of the real Obama from the image of Obama was a feat on par with the parting of the Red Sea. Obama’s messianic complex might have developed in part from the fact that no small miracle was wrought during the campaign.

The guy with the shiny smile, polished words and a nice looking family couldn’t possibly be a politically cold radical at his core. History was being made and the establishment media had concluded that the mystery man was their man.

Back then everyone was afraid to “question Obama’s patriotism” and even Sean Hannity missed the carefully hidden ideology of Obama. Hannity and others questioned the candidate’s “judgment” in allying himself with the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis and the ACORN gang rather than the man’s ideology. It was as though an all-American, middle of the road nice guy from the Chicago machine just happened to be completely void of the skills necessary to pick good mentors and political allies.

No one seemed to notice that not one normal American came forward saying, “I’ve been a close friend of Barack for 20 years and I can assure you that he does not hold the unjust-America, greedy-white-man, spread-the-wealth-around views of Rev. Wright and company.

Of course, journalists were not asking “The One” any questions that might have shed some light upon his beliefs. No one, for example, asked:

Have you read Sal Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals?”

Did you teach from the book while working with ACORN or any other organizations?

Do you agree with the goals of the book?

What other books have you read which most significantly influenced your political beliefs?

Who is your most influential, living mentor (the word “living” would prevent the answer, “Abraham Lincoln”)?

You indicated that the Warren Court was not that radical. Would you please elaborate?

You talked about the constitutional restraints on the Court to redistribute taxpayer money. In your view, how should the judicial system work?

Define the term “social economic justice.” Are you a proponent of government-attained social justice? Would your administration bypass the restraints on the judiciary to achieve social justice through taxing and spending packages and executive orders?

After the passing of over four months with Obama at the country’s helm, Hannity and many others can now see that much more than poor judgment was at stake.

With regard to Obama’s coldness as accurately assessed by Rush Limbaugh, one of the telltale signs during the campaign was Obama’s voting record on abortion (he voted against the Born Alive bill and then lied about his record during the campaign).

In addition, Obama gave a speech in 2007 from which he criticized the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban on the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion -- citing the health of the mother exception as a basis to vote against the ban. Forget about the fact that the partial birth abortion “procedure” involves cases in which the baby is 95% outside of the womb before it is killed. What exactly would a “health of the mother” issue look like that would require stabbing the partially exposed head as opposed to completing the delivery?

Supporting a practice which amounts to infanticide for perceived political gain can only be described as coldhearted.

Now that he is in office Obama’s political coldness is on full display in reference to the Gitmo issue.

I’m sure others have, but I haven’t read of anyone connecting the dots of Obama’s willingness to release “torture” memos and “prisoner abuse” photos to his naïve plan to close the terrorist-housing prison in Guantanamo Bay.

In keeping with his reckless campaign promise to the far left to close Gitmo, Obama sought to drum up public wrath against the Bush administration by releasing an incomplete and select corpus of CIA interrogation memos. Those memos demonstrated that after 9/11 three high-ranking terrorists were waterboarded (gasp!) in order to gain life-saving information. No memos showing the information gained from enhanced interrogation were released. Phase two of Obama’s Gitmo closing plan was to release photos of the poor abused prisoners. With public outrage over the immorality of the Bush administration and over concerns of America’s image to the world, Obama would then move to close Gitmo as effortlessly as a smug stride down the steps of Air Force One.

But thank God for Dick Cheney. Shortly after Cheney hit the television news circuit, explaining the context of the policies and demanding that the new administration release the rest of the memos, Obama’s plan sort of backfired.

Not only would Obama be talked out of releasing the photos, his plan to close Gitmo would be derailed (by Congress refusing to support its closing). In light of how public opinion had surprisingly tipped to Cheney’s favor, release of the photos would have been political suicide for Obama. And that inconvenient fact sobered up Team Obama from its invincibility binge.

The change of position on the photos was pure political calculation.

Therefore, it’s a little disconcerting to see journalists, including Bill O’Reilly missing the point on Obama and the photo issue. O’Reilly, perhaps in an overachieving attempt to be “fair and balanced,” characterized Obama on his Factor program as one who has come to understand the implications of releasing the photos and thus has wisely reversed course. Listening to O’Reilly and others one might think Obama should be applauded for not releasing the photos.

Obama, of course, is now taking the right position on the photos, but we must not lose sight of the context from which the photos became an issue. The context was Obama’s attempt to muster support for the closing of Gitmo. Other than foul politics, there was absolutely no reason to release classified interrogation memos and to promise the release of detainee “abuse” photos. Whether we speak of releasing the detracted “torture” memos, the promise to release “abuse” photos or the release of either, the same level of outrage should be evoked. The politicizing of national security for the twisted sake of personal ego is the lowest and coldest form of politicking imaginable.

If public opinion had not turned against Obama you can bet your bottom dollar the administration would have released the photos. If national security was the real reason for not releasing the photos, Obama would not have released the detracted interrogation memos in the first place. And he would not have been running around proclaiming to the world that the United States had a brutal policy of “torturing” Muslims.

Many believe that we have an inexperienced fraud at the helm, and it appears that Hannity and Limbaugh are right in their view that, regretfully, we have a coldhearted, Marxist radical in high office.

Obama’s College Road Trip to Notre Dame

John Mark Reynolds wrote an excellent piece for the Washington Post titled, “Obama Courageously Misses the Point,” in reference to President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame.

The use of “courageously” apparently is a spoof on the way Obama’s appearance was covered by the major news media. The brave hero of modern-day journalism, Barack Obama, courageously faced his critics head-on and tackled the abortion debate, as the Los Angeles Times framed it.

Only someone with an ego as large as Obama’s could believe his mere presence would actually solve world problems. That’s why he must meet with rouge dictators without conditions and bravely face his abortion critics. To the faithful, Obama’s voice of reason is too charming a force to resist in its call to find “common ground” and “common unity.”

Reynolds correctly notes, however, that Obama missed the point of the entire Obama/Notre Dame controversy. “The President spoke as if the controversy centered on his appearance at Notre Dame and speech when in reality it centered on his being honored despite his views.” And, voting record, I might add.

Once again, Obama masterfully turned attention from the real controversy to boldly tackle a red herring from which “common ground” could be found. In this case the common ground to stand upon was that of “civil dialogue.” Almost no one, of course, believes that civil dialogue over abortion should be thwarted or turned uncivil. The setting of a commencement speech at a Catholic (or secular) university, however, is not the context for a dialogue on abortion. It is a context in which the Catholic university, based on its creeds, faith and doctrine, selects a speaker to inspire its graduates according to its creeds, faith and doctrine and to be honored with a high degree.

Holding up someone like Obama -- whose beliefs and deeds (voting record) on abortion stand in direct opposition to the core values of the university -- as a person of honor was a slap in the face to all traditional Catholics. Remember, Obama is not just an ordinary abortion proponent, but one who believes the “partial birth procedure” should be legal. He was also the candidate caught prevaricating over his voting record during the presidential campaign in reference to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA).

To counter his extreme and gruesome position on abortion, Obama made the crowd at Notre Dame feel a little better by reminding them that he was a community organizer:

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project . . . .

Obama worked with Catholic churches nonetheless -- He truly is all things to all people!

The potential problem for Obama is that the more he raises the “community organizer” card as though it is some badge of honor the more ordinary people are apt to find out just what Obama did as a community organizer.

It turns out that in 1988 Obama wrote a short article that became chapter four for the book, After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois (1990). The prologue of chapter four reads:

For three years Barack Obama was the director of Developing Communities Project, an institutionally based community organization on Chicago’s far south side. He has also been a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, an organizing institute working throughout the Midwest. Currently he is studying law at Harvard University.

In the introduction to the book Peg Knoepfle documents that, “Currently [1990], the major organizing story in Chicago is school reform, perhaps the most inclusive civic action the city has ever undertaken.” With regard to school reform, the author optimistically says, “More will be heard from these communities in the coming decade.” Well, approximately two decades later we know how that worked out for Obama and the social justice organizers. Chicago’s not exactly America’s model school district. Taxpayer shakedowns never seem to produce the results wished-for by the social leftists.

The organizers also “helped” the “dispossessed” as related to housing, as Ms. Knoepfle excitedly announces in the After Alinsky intro:

Meanwhile, a new financing opportunity for nonprofit housing develop­ment corporations throughout the U.S was provided by 1989 amendments to the federal savings and loans bailout. Besides making it easier for community groups to monitor whether banks and savings and loans are investing in poor and working-class neighborhoods, the amendments give the nonprofits access to low-interest mortgage rates on properties fore­closed on by failed savings and loans. The amendments had the backing of U.S. Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-20,
Texas), Rev. Jesse Jackson and of an organization with Alinsky roots that is mentioned but not covered at length in this book: American Communities Organized for Reform Now (ACORN). Organizing locally and working for social change nationally, ACORN has Chicago branches in Englewood and North Lawndale.

Even a secular university, Arizona State, had enough sense to not honor Obama with a high degree at its graduation ceremony. Arizona State denied Obama, not on moral grounds, but on lack of life accomplishments. Other than organizing his way to the White House and writing two books about himself what has Obama accomplished? The folks at Arizona State must have asked: As a former constitutional law professor for 12 years, where is his published legal scholarship? As a former legislator, where are the important laws bearing his name? As a multimillionaire from his biographic book sales, where are the charities and foundations he founded?

Arizona State recognized that a person doesn’t acquire honor from being a really good vote-organizer, fundraiser and teleprompter-reading public speaker.

Perhaps Notre Dame should have realized that although the position of President of the United States should be honored the man behind the image must earn it.

Pelosi's Watershed Moment

Aside from the disgrace of Speaker Pelosi having been caught in a lie over what she knew and when she knew it, the underlying issue remains the same: President Obama’s reckless release of the top-secret CIA interrogation memos. Obama and company wanted to continue the political game of defaming Bush and Cheney. Only now, Obama would kick it up a notch with new criminal and ethics accusations.

Democrats may now muster phony outrage over the former administration’s use of “torture” on innocent detainees, but back in 2002 even liberal Democrats acted as normal Americans for a season. When the smoke was still rising in Manhattan no one objected to the use of enhanced interrogation on the devils responsible for the mass murders.

Not even Nancy Pelosi.

During that brief season after 9/11 almost everyone saw America’s value of self preservation as preeminent to the “rights” of captured jihadists -- from whom life-saving information might be obtained. Even so, bones were not broken and fingernails were not ripped out. But I digress.

Back then Obama was just another Chicago-machine politician. But now, eight years later Obama the Magnificent has decided to mount his narcissistic high horse, releasing select intelligence documents from which a moral line might be drawn. Bush would be made to look really bad and Obama, of course, would be made to look really good. At least that was the plan.

Initially, Obama threatened to prosecute the Bush administration. Obama condemned the moral failings of the Bush administration, appealed to some vague notion of American “ideals” and “values,” and defined waterboarding as unlawful “torture.” Though he condemned the doctor-monitored technique as unlawful, Obama cited no specific law upon which to rest his case. And though he appealed to “our values,” he failed to define precisely the values he spoke of.

It appears that Obama’s greatest value concerning waterboarding is his old standby: Making America look bad while positioning himself as morally superior to the old traditions B.C.O. (Before the Coming of Obama).

Of course, the so-called mainstream news media were complicit in helping Obama achieve his goal. The news stories did not address the glaring question: Why would Obama only release documents revealing the enhanced techniques while withholding documents showing their effectiveness in saving American lives?

Apparently, Obama didn’t think anyone would have the audacity to demand that all exculpatory memos be released from which the American people might actually be informed that waterboarding saved American lives. Not surprisingly, Cheney’s request was recently denied by the Obama administration. The fact that he would release memos to reflect a negative image of America, while withholding the positive memos speaks volumes.

When Dick Cheney suggested to Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation that Obama should release the memos showing the effectiveness of the interrogation techniques, Schieffer responded, “Some people in the administration … believe the attorney general says he does not know of such memos.” Rather than accepting the comments of “some people” in the administration and making such outlandish remarks in blind support of Obama, maybe, just maybe, so-called journalists ought to investigate for themselves whether or not those memos actually exist. And perhaps, the news media ought to be asking tough questions of the Obama administration and calling for the release of the memos.

Instead, the Obama-loving media framed enhanced techniques such a waterboarding as “brutal” and “gruesome” methods of “torture.” Implicit in the reporting was that the Bush administration was a criminal regime. “Charges Unlikely over Interrogation Memos,” reads the news headline from the Los Angeles Times of May 6. The implication was that Bush administration officials could be criminally charged, but the Wonderful Savior, in his magnanimous kindness would have mercy on the motley crew of Bush-era criminals and forego prosecution. Thus reports ABC News:

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

How kind of Obama. He could prosecute the war criminals of the Bush administration, but for the sake of the country it would be enough to merely expose, publically reprimand and perhaps sanction the deviant miscreants.

Much to Obama’s surprise, Dick Cheney has been winning the public relations battle and White House polling data apparently reveals that most Americans hold the value of self preservation as the highest American value -- even higher than the Obamian value of debasing America in the eyes of her deadly foes for the purpose of making Obama look morally superior.

Obama was even prepared to go so far as to release to the world photos of the “abused” detainees until intelligence and military personnel and polling data convinced him otherwise.

In his irresponsible decision to release select intelligence memos, Obama apparently forgot that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats had no problem with waterboarding terrorists in 2002 when Americans feared another attack. The far left’s problem of having no intrinsic moral compass is being illustrated in the person of Speaker Pelosi as she stumbles and squirms in her present moral “outrage” over waterboarding.

Of course, you can’t blame Pelosi. Who was to know that waterboarding Islamic terrorists after 9/11 was unlawful and immoral?

After all, waterboarding terrorists didn’t become unlawful and immoral until Obama said it was. The new president opened a can of caterpillars and public sentiment could end up torturing Obama and company via enhanced poll numbers for the Republicans.

Obama is Post-Partisan After All

Regardless of the significance, almost every contemporary news headline relating to the president reveals the pro-Obama bias of the so-called mainstream press. Here is one insignificant headline of May 16: “Obama taps potential rival for China envoy.”

The Associated Press story begins: “With a reach across the political divide for Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China, President Barack Obama may have sidelined for now a potentially formidable Republican moderate and possible White House challenger in 2012.”

I guess we are supposed to gasp in awe of Obama’s bipartisan nature. Of course, you will notice that Obama hasn’t reached across the political divide to appoint any conservatives to posts of significance in which social or economic policy is at issue. You will notice that the liberal press calls Huntsman a “formidable Republican moderate,” which is an oxymoron. And if this unknown moderate wasn’t chosen for attorney general or anything of significance to Obama’s agenda, why, then, is the press making a big to-do about it?

The answer to the rhetorical question, of course, is that any symbolic gesture of Obama is viewed as evidence that he really was a new kind of candidate.

It is nothing short of amazing to witness the utter disconnect of the disconnected press. Liberals, I think, honestly believe that a formidable Republican candidate must be a “moderate.”

Like John McCain, if Huntsman is a moderate, he certainly is not a formidable candidate.

If Obama really appointed Huntsman to “sideline” him as a potential White House challenger in 2012, then he, like the liberal press, does not perceive the real threat to liberalism in 2012 – An authentic conservative candidate.

The Interrogation Memos and the 'Moral Bearings' of President Obama

President Obama made a striking statement after his partisan and security-jeopardizing decision to release post 9/11 memos on the Bush administration’s policies relating to interrogation of terrorists. Classifying “waterboarding” as unlawful torture, Obama self-righteously proclaimed that the United States lost its “moral bearings” under the previous administration.

That wonderful institution of malpractice and fraud, the “mainstream” press put it this way:

“President Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost ‘our [sic] moral bearings’ with use of the tactics.”

Using the word “gruesome” to describe (former) U.S. interrogation policy in context of terrorism doesn’t quite cut it. “Gruesome,” more accurately describes the scene of red American blood gushing onto the sword-wielding terrorist as he callously chops off his victim’s head. Simulated drowning isn’t nice, but it’s not torture. (It is effective though, having saved American lives with information coughed up from use of the tactic.)

Watching Obama destroy the country and weaken national security as the so-called mainstream news media cover for him is torture.

Incidentally, the bloody tactic commonly referred to as “partial birth abortion” in which the “doctor” pushes, with the intent to cause death, a sharp instrument into the almost-born baby’s head makes the cut in describing the word “gruesome.”

And speaking of losing “our moral bearings,” as Obama charged referring to policies that contributed heavily in preventing post 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil, it appears that Obama lost his moral bearings years ago. After all, with a moral compass in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama was pointed to the far, far left. That may or may not explain Obama’s voting record with respect to the gruesome, immoral practice of partial birth abortion -- it just might be that the President’s conscience has been seared to the point of putting politics over innocent life. Actually, I have no idea why or how anyone could vote to allow such depraved “family planning” tactics.

But there’s more. As W. Todd Huston reports:

“The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a ‘person’ that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a ‘neutrality clause’ that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.

“As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal ‘neutrality clause’ was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very ‘neutrality clause’ to the very bill he voted against in 2003.”

It defies imagination that someone possessing the moral bearings of Barack Obama would have the audacity to bring moral accusations against the very men and women who kept the country safe for seven consecutive years following 9/11.

To read comments on this piece at American Thinker, click here.

To read comments on this piece at Lucianne, click here.

Who Said That?

It’s time for a quick pop quiz.

Name the person who said the following about the U.S. military and the former president as related to the war on terror (currently, the overseas contingency operation):

“This $2,600 million spent each day to kill other people, this machine of killing peoples, devouring the world resources, eating the world resources each day. So this is a terrorist structure indeed, and we are in danger, so President Bush is right, I think. We are suffering a terrorist menace.”

(A) Rev. Jeremiah Wright

(B) William Ayers

(C) Father Michael Pfleger

(D) Eduardo Galeano

Though the words are consistent with all the above, the correct answer is Eduardo Galeano. He is the author of the book, “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of Pillage of a Continent,” of which the deranged mad man / wonderful dictator, Hugo Chavez, presented to President Obama at the recent Summit of the Americas.

The question I haven't heard asked is why would Chavez feel comfortable giving an anti-U.S. book to Obama in the first place? Imagine Chavez giving former President Reagan that book -- it would not have happened. Apparently, Obama's radical, yet somewhat veiled beliefs are discernable to all, except the U.S. news media.

Obama's Bare-Chest Diplomacy

Laura Ingraham recently commented on the Washingtonian Magazine’s cover photo of Obama in swim trunks. She makes the point that inasmuch as Obama knew that photographers were present at the beach scene, the President could have at least put on a T-shirt or one of those John Kerry spandex shirts.

I’ve got another idea. Since Obama is so full of himself, as they say in Kansas, why don’t we send him out to do some bare-chest diplomacy? Obama has demonstrated that he shares a certain level of camaraderie with the enemies of America who hate the United States and he feels he can win over rogue tyrants (to hate American peacefully and patiently while he transforms it). Therefore, why not send him out to meet unconditionally with rogue dictators in his swimsuit?

How could they resist getting caught up in the cult of Obama? How could they prevent the “thrill” from ascending their legs? Surely, the conversation among the foreign anti-America community would go from plotting against the U.S. to talking about Obama’s pecs.