And would Mr Obama reverse the fundamental principles of the United States Constitution for the sake of a short-term solution to a global economic problem? (Well, actually, maybe he would. Given his egomaniacal tendency to regard the Supreme Court as a turbulent nuisance when it obstructs his plans, he might not be the best exemplar of constitutional probity.)
...When it comes to conspiracies, I'm an Occam's Razor man. The more obvious explanation of the variable first line in the eternally shifting sands of Obama's biography is that, rather than pretending to have been born in Hawaii, he's spent much of his life pretending to have been born in Kenya.
After all, if your first book is an exploration of racial identity and has the working title "Journeys In Black And White," being born in Hawaii doesn't really help. It's entirely irrelevant to the twin pillars of contemporary black grievance -- American slavery and European imperialism. To 99.99 percent of people, Hawaii is a luxury vacation destination and nothing else.
Whereas Kenya puts you at the heart of what, in an otherwise notably orderly decolonization process by the British, was a bitter and violent struggle against the white man's rule. Cool! The composite chicks dig it, and the literary agents.
Ain't fiction great? You can have composite girlfriends, composite $ex if you get lucky and fictionalized experiences presented as real. You can have a background made up for you or be mysterious and have no traceable background that anyone can find. Even more mysterious than what happened to the Manchurian Candidate while in the captivity of communists during the Korean War.
There is nothing transparent about Obummer. It is like poking a finger at the air and finding nothing ever there. A will-o'-the-wisp. Not knowing anything about the guy is good enough reason not to vote for him. If one needs more reason, then there is his record as President--a dismal failed Presidency. I'd crawl over broken glass to register and vote against him.
The more autobiographies he writes, the less anybody knows.
For Obama ambiguity was a feature -- not a bug. And you have to hand it to the O-Team. They exploited Obama's political liability and developed it into one of the most successful marketing strategies in history. "Hope and Change" was created as a multi-faceted Projection Campaign. Think of "Coke is it". Perhaps, the real brilliance was in anticipation of post election. As soon as the Progressives predictably carped about the slow pace of change the O-Minions were quickly dispatched to disparage the "Professional Left" for projecting their concepts of change -- not Barak's. And when polls suggested a large portion of the electorate didn't know B. Hussein Obama's religious affiliation or surmised he is (gasp) Muslim the Baiters came out in force to denounce the right-wing bigot machine. Now with a recorded history distilling " it's not my fault and the other guy's worse" into a winning slogan could prove to be quite a challenge.
Obama is the most contrived personna imaginable, with frayed edges that are so apparent, yet untouched by so much of our national media, to their shame and hypocracy. The MSM has become completely invested in Champ and increasingly dilutes the pitiful vestiges of credibility in their efforts and blind avoidance of the obvious. From the start he has gamed the system, hidden inadequacies and made glossy with grifter skill things that are shiny and utterly shallow. He is a fraud and contrived in virtually every aspect of his life, and behind it all, the massive Chicago way further pollutes and corrupts the already bloated and slothful beauracracy and crony capitalism/socialistic business connections. God help what is left of the Republic and capitalistic system that made us the envy of the world if Champ fools Americans again.
I was musing the other day about this very point.
A War Like No Other, VDH. Reading it puts me in the student category with the author as teacher. In it he is explaining the Spartans out rampaging the abandoned Athenian farmland, he specifically mentions the chopping down of the Olive trees. VDH mentions how he himself attempted to chop down an Olive tree and states that even with modern tools (not chainsaws, axe and saw) it was tough so to imagine how difficult it was physically and logistically feeding and watering so many hard working men.
Him stating that he himself has that personal experience in said labor adds much weight not only to that particular section, but for the rest of the book, "Hey this guy takes the extra step rather than just writing research".
Wouldn't that be something if in fact, in real life, not only does he not have Olive trees, but lives in the city far from any farm experience?
wow. It would appear they are actually protesting the Joooos' right to defend themselves from rocket attacks on civilians - which is a war crime? I'm shocked!
Posted by: Frank G ||
NE/Boston's primary export is liberal brain-power with the usual over-blown sense of entitlement.
After being in their professional functional job track for about 10 years, as they're kicked-upstairs 3-4 times; it becomes obvious to them that it's now time to leave for Mom & Dad's finished basement.
It's there, while in their comfort zone, they finally have enough time to ruminate on all the anti-Israel rants of their professors that they never really quite understood.
And, so now, they can really vent; as they noisily rejoice as their infirm professors catch up with the unruly mob to help cause mischief as they attempt to be relevant.
I Stand With Israel!! -cz-
Why invent a new religion? Robert Spencer's excellent new book Did Mohammed Exist? collates recent historical research questioning the existence of the historical Mohammed, much of it previously not accessible to a lay American audience. This is a dangerous thing to do, and a courageous one.
Some years ago I chided Spencer for giving the Koran too much credibility; more important than the nasty things one finds in the Koran, I argued, are two questions: "1) Mohammed may never have existed, and 2) If he existed, he may have had nothing to do with the Koran, which well might be an 8th- or 9th-century compilation." Spencer's present book will be translated into major Muslim languages and published on the Internet, according to Daniel Pipes. That is an important and welcome development.
This won't have any effect on devout Muslims, but it is exactly the sort of information that the general Western audience needs to be exposed to. Muslim claims to Dome of the Rock are laughable, for example, but if people don't know the history behind it they might be inclined to take those claims seriously.
I'm inclined to think that Mohammed, like Jesus and Moses, was a real person who has had a body of myth and legend attached to his life - some of it pretty unsavory to the modern mind. But some of what Moses did seems a bit questionable to the modern mind as well... though he doesn't seem to have humped and killed everything in sight(and not necissarily in that order) like Big Moe.
OTOH, it may be that the Haditha is simply a bunch of crap that needs to be tossed out when and if Islam has its own version of the Protestant Reformation. My buddy who is Muslim certainly thinks so.
I should add that, in all fairness, the vast majority of those of us who believe pick and choose what we like from our religions and their texts. The key is to convince Muslims to selectively ignore the idiotic portions of their religion as a requirement of joining modern global socieity.