Obama Manchurian nonentity

Angelo M. Codevilla

This article appeared in the Summer 2011 issue of the Claremont Review of Books. Click here to send a comment.

Books discussed in this essay:

The Obamas: The Untold Story of an African Family, by Peter Firstbrook

A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother, by Janny Scott

Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, by Barack Obama

Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition, by James T. Kloppenberg

Radical-In-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, by Stanley Kurtz

"Only [the popes] have states, and they do not defend them; subjects, and they do not govern them; and the states are not taken from them though undefended, and the subjects though not governed, do not concern themselves about it.... But since they are upheld by superior cause, to which the human mind does not reach, I will leave off speaking of them; since because they are exalted and maintained by God, discussing them would be the doing of a presumptuous and daring man. Nonetheless, if someone were to inquire of me...."

—Niccolò Machiavelli

The Prince

Presumptuous and daring, flouting politically correct prohibitions against looking too closely at his time's Establishment, Niccolò Machiavelli went on to detail who did what to whom to establish the papacy's temporal power. Cesare Borgia's cruel triangulation between Rome's Orsini and Colonnesi factions, not miracles, had made the papal states into a major power.

In our time, asking how a young man of scarce achievement got into position to win the Democratic Party's nomination for president courts the contemporary synonyms for "impious": "birther," "conspiracy theorist," and, of course, "racist." Granted, to inquire into what formed a president is not as important as to understand what he does. Nevertheless, because fully to know where anyone is going requires grasping whence he comes, let us open ourselves to wonder how, minus miracles, a 10-year-old boy without obvious talent who had lived in Indonesia since age six ends up with an eight-year scholarship to Hawaii's most exclusive school; a scholarship to Occidental College; a transfer into Columbia University; acceptance into Harvard Law School, and editorship of its law review; and how he goes from job to prestigious job without apparently mastering any of the previous ones. No wonder some of Barack Obama's supporters treat him as if he were anointed by an extraterrestrial power.

No less an object of awe and curiosity is the seamlessness of Obama's mentality. Without marbling or inconsistency, it is serviceable as a definition of contemporary American leftism, and leads one to wonder what earthly environment could have produced such a pure specimen.

Intellectually, Obama has always been a consumer, having left no record of formulating new ideas or of penetrating old ones. Politically, he is a follower and figurehead: having grown up in the ever branching stream of socialist voluntary organizations, he surfed its leftward eddies, never forming or leading a faction. He was handed a safe seat in the Illinois state senate, a nearly safe one in the U.S. Senate, and was surprised when Harry Reid informed him that influential Democrats wanted to run him for president. The Democratic campaign of 2008 pushed against an open door. As president, he rides his party's center of gravity.

In short, Barack Obama himself is not that remarkable. He can give a rousing political speech, of course, but that is usually not sufficient to get oneself elected president. So, since he seems to have been reading from a teleprompter all his life, and since words certifiably his own are both few and opaque, it is most fruitful as well as relevant for us to focus on whom and what he has been following.

What accounts for his smooth, unlikely ascent? Both his advancement and his character seem most likely attributable to the network into which he was born, and out of which he never stepped for an instant. That network's privileges, wealth, and intellectual-social proclivities always depended to some extent—and nowadays depend more than ever—on its connection with the U.S. government. Its intellectual and moral character, like that of modern government itself, has always been on the left side of American life and, as such, has undergone splits and transmogrifications surely the most important of which in our time combines upscale social norms with radical disdain for the rest of America. Barack Obama came of age through these.

Unfortunately, that liberal Establishment has placed key facts about itself beyond public scrutiny—more in the fashion of Chicago Sicilians than of Roman pontiffs. Here we examine some of the books and other research that shed light on Obama's origins, note at least as many questions as answers, and try to distinguish between facts and spin. The results are necessarily conjectural, because of the nature of the available evidence.

 Obama betrayal lies allies

Daniel Greenfield

While in the United States the news from the Summit of the Americas involved a prostitute scandal, on the other side of the ocean it was about Obama’s continuing determination to undermine America’s allies. After Prime Minister Cameron’s last humiliating outing with Obama, all he had to show for it was a supposed assurance of neutrality, which the bumbling prime minister attempted to spin into support for the status quo and self-determination for the islanders. It was however no such thing.

When asked, at a joint conference with the President of Colombia, about the Falklands, Obama said curtly that he was remaining completely neutral. Last month while visiting Ground Zero, Prime Minister Cameron had pitifully tried to assure reporters that while Obama might not be for the legal rights of the islanders, he wasn’t actively against them. This may even be a victory of sorts as Hector Timerman, Argentina’s leftist Minister of Foreign Relations, had earlier suggested that the Obama administration had been the most favorable to Argentina’s claims to date.

Obama’s obnoxious behavior is all the more senseless because while there isn’t very much that the United States needs from Argentina, it needs to maintain a good level of cooperation with the UK. Last year the UK lost one soldier to every ten American soldiers in Afghanistan. This year it’s more like one to five. If Obama wants any kind of orderly retreat from Afghanistan, he needs the cooperation and help of a country where the war is even more unpopular than it is here. Then there’s the plan by both leaders to stabilize their political situation with a release of oil from their strategic reserves.

Argentina on the other hand is facing major economic problems and last month the administration was forced to suspend trade benefits due to money owed to two American companies. One of the companies, Blue Ridge Investments, is a subsidiary of Bank of America. Warren Buffett is a major investor in the latter. If Obama could take such an unprecedented step in defense of Warren Buffett’s financial interests, why not take a smaller one for an international ally?

As a further display of cynicism, the Obama administration took a position against a ruling by Judge Thomas Griesa obligating Argentina to make payments to Elliott Management Corporation. EMC is run by Paul Singer, who is a major Republican donor. Singer has already given a million to Romney’s SuperPAC and Fortune Magazine has described him as the Wall Street figure whose support is most crucial to the Romney campaign. It’s in Obama’s own interest to handicap Singer and reward Buffett, and that is exactly what the administration appears to have done.

Obama isn’t unwilling to alienate Argentina for his own culture of corruption, trashing international trade to see to it that his friends get paid and his enemies don’t.  He just does not appear to care enough to make the most minimal gesture toward the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Cameron.  Cameron, like Brown, has shamelessly humiliated himself before Obama, and taken home nothing for it.

 Left dishonest lies insane

PLANET LIBERAL

On Planet Liberal this man is the embodiment of white racism. On Planet Earth, he came into the courtroom much as you would expect a man who had not wanted to be in a lethal confrontation and did not spend his time licking his chops at the prospect of killing a black teenager.

On Planet Liberal this was supposed to be some inverse version of To Kill a Mockingbird, A Time to Kill and every other of the numerous entries in that genre. On Planet Earth, it's looking like a weak case with an incompetent and unethical prosecutor whose own team is unable to answer the question of who started the fight between Martin and Zimmerman.

But living on Planet Liberal requires believing twelve impossible things before breakfast.

To live on Planet Liberal, you have to believe that only white people can be racist, that going deep into debt is the only way to fix the economy and that freedom means forcing other people to do things for you.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that sexual orientation is fixed permanently in an individual's genetic code and can never be altered, but that gender is a fluid social construct that can be swapped with a little mutilation and some hormone shots, or just with a change of outfit.

To live on Planet Liberal, you have to believe that America, Europe and Israel have no right to sovereignty over their territory, but that Saddam's Iraq and Ahmadinejad's Iran do.

To live on Planet Liberal, you have to believe that every breath you take helps raise planetary temperatures but that buying carbon credits is the only way to save earth.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that despite Lee Harvey Oswald, the People's Temple, the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Anarchist Bombings of 1919, the real threat to this country comes from right wingers.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that wealth redistribution from the people to the government is social justice.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that religion is bad because it's divisive and has to be taken on faith, but that left-wing politics are good because they are divisive and their utopia has to be taken on faith.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that the only people who should have guns are those who work for the government and that this will protect the people.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that teachers should be paid more than basketball players, without any regard to where the money would come from.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that war is bad, but that terrorism is good.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that the Constitution is outdated, but the decisions of the Warren Court, led by a racist from the 19th century, should be kept forever.

To live on Planet Liberal you have to believe that the people want you to implement all your ideas, but you have to lie about it to them because they're too dumb to know they want them implemented.

Daniel Greenfield

 propaganda Mohammedans Left judenophobia

Naomi Ragen

Instead of cowering and bending under the onslaught of bad publicity, it would have been refreshing to see someone in our government standing up to shield our soldier, instead of flinging rocks and mud at his good name along with our enemies.

The recent YouTube video showing Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, deputy commander of the Beka’a Brigade, striking an aggressive ISM foreign national in the mouth with the clip of his rifle, has made waves all over the world. As usual, as in the Mohammed al-Dura incident, the pictures, taken out of context and played without explanation, are hard for those who love Israel to combat. After all, no one wants to attempt to justify the killing of a child (even though in the al-Dura case, it was staged and completely false) or the violent attack on a handsome blond Danish “peace activist.”

Left out of the 60-second video, of course, are the two hours of physical attacks and provocations which preceded the event.

According to Eisner, who has been condemned for not using the water cannon and gas grenades at his disposal, “There was no reason for me to fire a gas grenade as there had been no violence in the course of two hours of dialogue… I decided it would be better to let them calm down,” he told Ynet’s Yoav Zitun.

But then, to his surprise, the 60 activists were suddenly joined by two busloads of ISM members who attempted to block Road 90, a major artery filled with holidaymakers heading towards the popular nature trails in the northern part of the country. At that point, protesters began attacking soldiers, leaving Eisner with a broken finger and injuries that required a cast on his hand. Taken by surprise, he used his weapon to deflect the attack. The ISM members, Eisner said, “risked my life and the lives of many others.” Still, the officer, highly regarded for his integrity, morality and professionalism by his fellow soldiers, admitted, “I should not have flung my weapon like that.”

Unfortunately, 60 seconds is all the “flytilla” organizers needed to turn their failed propaganda stunt into another highly viewed media event blackening the face of Israel.

When I first looked into this, what interested me was who these young people are who are willing to drop everything, hop onto a plane and fly to a country they have no connection with to attack IDF soldiers and risk Israeli lives on the roads. After all, they looked normal, like young people everywhere, filled with the same eager idealism that fuels the Occupy Wall Streeters and DCers, and Arab Springers. What is it that motivates them? What are they trying to accomplish? And so I did a little check on the organizers of the “Welcome to Palestine Campaign.”

 Space DM particles Quantum ESO

Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries

CREDIT: ESO/L. Calçada

This artist’s impression shows the Milky Way galaxy. The blue halo of material surrounding the galaxy indicates the expected distribution of the mysterious dark matter, which was first introduced by astronomers to explain the rotation properties of the galaxy and is now also an essential ingredient in current theories of the formation and evolution of galaxies.

Astronomers mapped the motions of hundreds of stars in the Milky Way in order to deduce the amount of dark matter that must be tugging on them from the vicinity of our sun. Their surprising conclusion? There's no dark matter around here.

As the researchers write in a forthcoming paper in the Astrophysical Journal, the stellar motion implies that the stars, all within 13,000 light-years of Earth, are gravitationally attracted by the visible material in our solar system — the sun, planets and surrounding gas and dust — and not by any unseen matter.

"Our calculations show that [dark matter] should have shown up very clearly in our measurements. But it was just not there!" said lead study author Christian Moni-Bidin, an astronomer at the University of Concepción in Chile.

If the analysis of the data from Chile's European Southern Observatory (ESO) is correct — a big "if," several physicists say — it overturns the decades-old theory that dark matter permeates space in our region of the Milky Way. Dark matter is an invisible material thought to make up 80 percent of all matter in the universe. Although it doesn't interact with light and so cannot be seen, its presence is invoked to explain why the outskirts of galaxies, including the Milky Way, rotate much more quickly than would be expected based on the gravitational pull of visible matter alone. Commonly accepted as fact, dark matter plays an essential role in models of galaxy formation and evolution, and several experiments are under way to detect dark matter particles on Earth.

 Obama 15

15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We've heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt's angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won't lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald's say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn't do what you said it would, shouldn't you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you've demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren't you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that's appropriate for an American President?

 Obama foreigner truth

Diana West

Below is this week's syndicated column: "Is Obama Disowning His Online Birth Certificate?" It takes in the shifting strategy of the Obama defense team in fending off challenges to Obama's eligibility to appear on presidential primary ballots. Obama's eligibility is a signal concern for the nation which should be the subject of informed, serious debate on the front pages, on news shows, and also, most important, in the Congress. Such debate is non-existent. Such concern is non-existent, too. It doesn't seem to matter to the citizenry that a fraudster may be completing one term in the White House while seeking another.

I recently had the occasion to discuss the matter with a very famous American conversative.

Famouse Conservative said to me: Tell me what columns of yours are getting a big response lately.

I had earlier written this column about the Georgia ballot challenge hearing in which President Obama ignored a subpoena for the certified copy of his birth certificate (among other documents). This column elicited a great response from readers, many of whom asked me the same question: why this important story wasn't being covered in the media.

They're really interested in this whole eligibility story, I said.

Famous Conservative: I'll bet they are.

Me: Aren't you?

FC: No.

Me: No? Why aren't you?

FC: If this were happening back at the time of the election, maybe.

I told FC  this is an election (ding-dong).

FC: Exactly. But this will alienate the people we need to defeat him at the polls.

I made some naive-sounding comment (which I thoroughly subscribe to) about the seeking the truth regardless of the outcome, adding that the truth would likely alienate plenty of people from Obama, too.

Impasse.

New tack for Famous Conservative: If this were true, why hasn't Rush or Hannity taken it on?

Me:  They're afraid.

FC: (Scoffs.)

Me: Look, Rush won't talk about a lot of things: Islamization, for one. Sharia. Muslim Brotherood, those kinds of things. He has a comfort zone.

FC: (Disbelief.)

Impasse.

FC: Well, maybe if some respected conservative journalist were to examine the story --

Me: (What am I, chopped liver?) Who, for instance?

FC: John Fund, Daniel Henniger ...

Hey boys, have at it. But there's a problem. According to the FC (1) the truth will alienate voters so we mustn't seek the truth; and (2) it can't be true anyway because otherwise Rush, Sean, John and Dan would be all over the story. Of course, if FC's conservative journalists subscribe to #1 or some variation thereon as partisans or Republicans, we'll never get to #2. Meanwhile, across the journalistic aisle, the MSM has the another, equally heavy stake in preventing the truth from outing. They want Obama re-elected.

What's wrong with this picture? Conservative logic, conservative morality.

Needless to say, I didn't make any inroads with FC although FC's spouse shares my concern in the subject, so that's something.

-------

The column:

 Obama dogeater

DOGEATER

Music: Hall/Oates
Lyrics: Made possible by a grant from the Lolo D. and Catherine T. Soetoro Foundation

He only comes out at night
To find a tasty bite
Nothing is new, I’ve seen his gaze before
Watching and waiting
He’s sitting with you but eyeing some Basset Hounds

So many to taste and see
Chihuahua fricasse
Dear Leader is wild, but he’s tamed by the taste of a puppy’s tail
Served up on a platter
The school lunches are sure gonna get bizarre

Oh here he comes
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up
Oh here he comes
He’s a dogeater
Oh here he comes
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up
Oh here he comes
He’s a dogeater

I wonder if Michelle approves
Fried puppy just won’t do
Poached poodle flan, the One will really rip their fur apart
Mind over matter
TelePrompTer glaze but a beast is in his heart

Oh here he comes
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up
Oh here he comes
He’s a dogeater
Oh here he comes
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up
Oh here he comes
He’s a dogeater

PJMedia

 U.S. blacks Left Guns

Ann Coulter

Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC'S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")

This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.

(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)

In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen -- could not own guns.

 Mohammedans Islam inferior

Khaled Montaser

Translated, abridged and introduced by Raymond Ibrahim

What if an entire civilization developed an inferiority complex? What ramifications would that have on the rest of the world? How would such paranoia play itself out in the interaction of civilizations?

An Arabic op-ed entitled "The Broder Dilemma and Inferiority Complex," written by the Muslim intellectual Khaled Montaser late last year, and translated below, portrays the Muslim world as suffering from just such an inferiority complex.

We Muslims have an inferiority complex and are terribly sensitive to the world, feeling that our Islamic religion needs constant, practically daily, confirmation by way of Europeans and Americans converting to Islam. What rapturous joy takes us when a European or American announces [their conversion to] Islam—proof that we are in a constant state of fear, alarm, and chronic anticipation for Western validation or American confirmation that our religion is "okay." We are hostages of this anticipation, as if our victory hinges on it—forgetting that true victory is for us to create or to accomplish something, such as those [civilizations] that these converts to our faith abandon.

And we pound our drums and blow our horns [in triumph] and drag the convert to our backwardness, so that he may stand with us at the back of the world's line of laziness, [in the Muslim world] wherein no new scientific inventions have appeared in the last 500 years. Sometimes those who convert relocate to our countries—only to get on a small boat and escape on the high seas back to their own countries.