Where Obama Does Not Help Hillary!

President Obama sounds rather annoyed at blacks who aren’t panting for a Hillary Clinton presidency. In a stem-winder delivered to the Congressional Black Caucus on Saturday, Mr. Obama said he would consider it a “personal insult” if blacks didn’t back Mrs. Clinton in November and thus preserve his legacy. “My name might not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot,” he insisted.

This wasn’t the first time the president has used a Congressional Black Caucus forum to scold black people for insufficient appreciation of his leadership. In 2011, after black lawmakers began criticizing the president’s lack of attention to the economic problems of the underclass, he told the group, “I expect all of you to march with me and press on,” adding that they should “stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying.” Some black commentators took umbrage at his tone.

“Funny, isn’t it, how Obama always gets the nerve to say shut up when he’s addressing a friendly audience?” wrote the Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy. “The unemployment rate among blacks stands at 16.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, up from 11.5 percent when Obama took office. By some accounts, black people have lost more wealth since the recession began than at any time since slavery. And Obama gets to lecture us?”

Five years later, the lectures continue while progress in the Obama era remains elusive to many blacks, which might explain the lack of black enthusiasm for a Democratic successor. By almost any traditional metric—homeownership, median incomes, labor participation, poverty—blacks are worse off today than they were at the start of Mr. Obama’s first term. The jobless rate for blacks has improved since 2009, but it’s improved even more for whites, which means the racial gap in unemployment has gotten wider.

Mr. Obama won 95% of the black vote in 2008 and 93% in 2012, election years that also saw record black turnout. Mrs. Clinton was never destined to duplicate that performance, but she’s struggling more than she thought she would with certain voting blocs. The black primary voters who powered her to the nomination over Bernie Sanders tended to be older. Mrs. Clinton, perhaps overconfident, spent much of the summer courting moderate Republicans instead of shoring up younger blacks who are more skeptical of establishment politicians and more likely to view third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein as viable alternatives.

There is little doubt that the former secretary of state will win a much larger percentage of the black vote than Donald Trump. What’s unknown is the total number of blacks who will show up at the polls without Barack Obama being on the ballot. Because the president’s economic record is so unimpressive, he’s relying on what Democrats have long relied on to fuel minority turnout: anger, fear, resentment and racial paranoia.

In his Saturday address, the president touted efforts to reduce the “mass incarceration” of blacks today, which he suggested stems from a racist criminal justice system rather than from disproportionately high black crime rates. And he voiced support for “ban the box” measures that prevent employers from asking job applicants about their criminal past, even though economic studies repeatedly have shown that these policies harm the job prospects of less skilled young black men. These are the kinds of issues that may excite the Democratic base but don’t necessarily benefit struggling black communities.

Mr. Obama also told his audience that Republicans are disenfranchising blacks by promoting voter ID laws, which he likened to having to “count bubbles in a bar of soap” during Jim Crow. In fact, a Gallup Poll published last month found that 95% of Republicans, 83% of independents and 63% of Democrats support a photo ID requirement for voting. So do 81% of whites and 77% of non-whites. Moreover, given that the black voter turnout rate in 2012 exceeded white turnout—including in those states with the strictest voter ID requirements—the GOP seems to be doing a very poor job of suppressing the black vote, if that is the objective.

The Democrats can’t run on the president’s track record with blacks, but what they do have going for them is an opponent in Donald Trump who may be the only politician in the country more unpopular than Hillary Clinton and by all indications eager to remain so. Mr. Trump’s recent return to the birther fever swamps is another signal that he is not merely uninterested in the black vote but may be hostile to it. Right now, Mr. Trump is more indispensable to Mrs. Clinton’s black outreach effort than the president.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).

Obama’s Trump Problem

Obama has a Trump problem and it is that he claims that Trump is unprepared for the Presidency. Of course, the problem is that Obama is the most woefully unprepared President ever.

Obama claims that Trump doesn’t know “basic stuff.” This is from the man who said he “visited all 57 states” during his first campaign and thought Austrians spoke Austrian, stuff that 6th graders know.

Obama is still the most hopelessly naive President ever. He just gets nothing right. His economy is the worst in fifty years, his foreign policy is in disarray. He relies on a complicit media to support his activities.

So, Obama’s Trump problem is that he sees someone he thinks is as unprepared as he was. The fact is that Trump is much more prepared that Obama ever was. He is a man of accomplishment whereas Obama was a community organizer, an Alinsky position, an undistinguished Illinois legislator who voted present because he didn’t have knowledge of issues that would allow him to vote “yea” or “nay,” an undistinguished US Senator from Illinois, need I say more. He was elected for reasons we all understand.

Obama’s Trump issue is that he sees himself in Trump and is really afraid that Trump will win and prove to be a superior President.

Obama’s Unfortunate National Prayer Breakfast Speech

Barack Obama appeared at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday and his speech there, delivered in a somnolent, and desultory way, called out the horribly cruel burning of a Jordanian pilot and other barbaric Islamic acts.  He then turned, and where he has been unable to mention that these barbaric acts were done in the name of Muhammed, he mentioned that horrible acts during the crusades, the inquisition, and then leaped forward to slavery and Jim Crow laws in the US were done in the name of Christ.   So, according to Obama, who was raised in a Muslim country and attended an Islamic Madrassa (religious school) when young and impressionable, makes the case that Islamic barbarity is done by a fringe element and is not done in the name of Muhammed, but he claims the Crusades, Inquisition, slavery and Jim Crow were done in the name of Christ! There is a difference here and it is disturbing. Obama is giving us the Islamic version of history!!

Obama’s version of history is also wrong. The Crusades were a Christian response to the Ottoman conquest of the Holy Land. When one mentions Ottoman Conquest, Ottoman desecration is also included as Christians were slaughtered, churches were burned, artifacts destroyed, art defaced, literally. The Holy Land had been Christian since Roman times and were overrun by Muslims in the seventh century and the Crusades were several hundred years later, from 1095 to about 1350. They were undertaken in the name of Christ, obviously, to recover historically Christian lands. As we know all too well today, the Crusades failed. 

The Inquisiton is an interesting subject for Obama to raise.  This is as close to Muslim orthodoxy as Catholicism has ever been. The major crime in the Inquisition was apostasy, or leaving the religion, That is a capital offense under Islam and, at times, under the Inquisition. The deaths caused by the Inquisiton over hundreds of years would rise to a slow Tuesday for Boko Haram.
This leads to Obama’s most outrageous comment which was that Slavery and Jim Crow were undertaken in the name of Christ. Obama cites a vague reference in the Old Testament about “slaves obeying their masters.”  for his claim, he forgets that was not Christ. He has shown that he has little knowledge of history, but this shows him to be ignorant of the anti-slavery and civil rights movement, as slavery was not undertaken in the name of Christ, it was ended in the name of Christ, as William WIlberforce in England and the Abolitionists in the US were deeply Christian in their fervent hatred of Slavery. John Brown carried Christ’s words in the bible as he attacked the slave establishment in Harper’s Ferry.

The most contemporary and egregious claim is that Jim Crow laws were instituted in the name of Christ. Even a person as unaware of History as Obama should recognize that it was Christ’s followers who lead the fight to eliminate Jim Crow laws. Reverends Ralph Abernathy, and Martin Luther King, Jr were men of the church,  lead a religious movement to eliminate Jim Crow under the banner of the Southern Christian Leadership Council. How could Obama miss this fact?

Obama, as stated above, is poorly educated in history, but he is politically clever.  By attempting to equate terror now with the Crusades and Inquisition and blaming Christ he is delving into the realm of the progressive movements belief in Moral Relativism, the idea that there is no universal truth, and, if you think Muslims are bad now, you should have seen the Crusaders in 1100.  Yes, it is absurd, but remember what Professor Gruber said about Obama voters!.The politically adept Obama is speaking to his flock.

Belmont Club » The Day Obama’s Presidency Died

This article contains the best analysis of the Benghazi fiasco and places it in historical perspective. It also links contemporary events to Benghazi and describes the impact on the Obama administration. This is a must read article.

George Will’s “Pardon these Turkeys.” Great Commentary

George Will has written the following article pointing our several of the more bizarre occurrences that have recently been in the news. Of particular note, is the comment that an asteroid that passed close to the earth “was the product of global warming.”  You can’t make this stuff up. Then there is the effort to re-write history by referring to Democratic Alabama governor as a Republican. Of course, the most absurd such claim is that Republican Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat, which would upset Stephen Douglas, of course. This article is well worth reading. 



Pardon these turkeys


We are tomorrow’s past, so this Thanksgiving give thanks for 2013, a year the future might study more for amusement than for edification. HealthCare.gov performed the public service of defeating Barack Obama’s ascription of every disagreeable effect to one of two causes — George W. Bush or global warming.

Concerning the latter, a CNN anchor wondered if an asteroid that passed by Earth on Feb. 15 was “an effect of, perhaps, global warming.” The Los Angeles Times announced that it had stopped publishing letters questioning global warming caused by human activity.

Which makes sense, if you agree with the New Yorker’s resident expert, who called the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on warming “the last word on climate change.” It evidently is the first science to reach the end of its subject, all questions answered. Therefore it is puzzling that dramatic predictions of an unusually high number of 2013 hurricanes were dramatically wrong.

Paleoanthropology has not reached its last word. The story of human evolution may have been simplified by conclusions reached this year about a 1.8 million-year-old skull found in the Caucasus in 2005. The earliest human remain found outside of Africa indicates that our ancestors emerged from Africa as a single species, not several species. Its brain was about one-third the size of today’s human brains.

Some of today’s brains. A Tennessee judge’s ruling was reversed: She had ordered a family to change their child’s name, Messiah, because that “title” has “only been earned by one person.” At the school where a Maryland kindergartner is supposed to learn reasonableness, school officials interrogated him for more than two hours before notifying his mother that he possessed a cap gun. Fortunately, it contained no caps; otherwise it would have been deemed an explosive. Michigan educators forced the removal of the little plastic soldiers a mother had put on cupcakes she brought to school on her son’s birthday.

On Sept. 17, Constitution Day, a student atModesto Junior College was told to stop distributing copies of the Constitution until he had filled out the requisite forms for permission to use the college’s designated “free speech area.”

The Bank of England is putting Jane Austen on a new 10-poundnote because without a woman on some notes, British currency would “not command respect and legitimacy.” Queen Elizabeth II is on all notes. When Britain’s education secretary said children should learn to add and subtract, and memorize some of the nation’s kings and queens, a teachers’ union objected. The union had hitherto said: “For the state to suggest that some knowledge should be privileged over other knowledge is a bit totalitarian in a 21st-century environment.” American University in D.C. scheduled a course on “The 50 Shades Trilogy.”

The infantilization of adults continued with the marketing of $600 High Rollers, which are Big Wheels for (biological, not actual) grown-ups. MSNBC, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Gov.

George Wallace’s attempt to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama, identified Wallace as a Republican.

Human remains found beneath a Leicester parking lot were confirmed to be those ofRichard III, missing for most of the 528 years since he lost the Battle of Bosworth. He remains buried beneath the bad reputation acquired at the hands of the Tudors’ talented PR specialist, William Shakespeare.

In Washington, even local government is demented: Its transit authority Metro threatened Henry Docter with “arrest, fines and imprisonment” for the crime of unregulated gardening. Docter had filled 176 empty planters at the Dupont Circle subway stop. Metro was briefly deterred by the public outcry against its threat to punish Docter for his uncompensated act of beautification. But then it had the 1,000 morning glories and other plants ripped out.

Those vigilant about our welfare never sleep; Canadian relief supplies for Oklahoma tornado victims were stopped at the U.S. border until every item could be itemized in alphabetical order and its country of origin noted. You can’t be too careful.

As the National Park Service and NASA understand. They are among the federal They are among the federal agencies that have their own SWAT teams. The Agriculture Department, however, stresses sensitivity. A video of its “cultural sensitivity training” shows employees being instructed to call the Pilgrims who created Thanksgiving “illegal aliens.” Of course there were no immigration laws to make any one of the first Thanksgivings illegal — for which fact, give thanks. Someday, if there is no Agriculture Department, more thanks to be given.

Netanyahu’s Speech at the UN Is Very Important.

Scott Johnson at Powerlineblog.com posted an excerpt of Benjamin Natanyahu’s speech at the UN last week.  The excerpt is posted Here; and describes the long history of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, Israel. He continues by describing the 2500 year history of Persian friendship toward the Jewish people:

Some 2500 years ago, the great Persian King Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. He issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the Land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. That’s a Persian decree, and thus began a historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times.

He goes on to describe the soured and dangerous relationship with the radical Islamists in Teheran starting in 1979: 

But in 1979, a radical regime in Tehran tried to stamp out that friendship. As it was busy crushing the Iranian people’s hopes for democracy, it also led wild chants of “Death to the Jews!” Now, since that time, Presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents were considered moderates, others hardliners. But they’ve all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgetting regime – that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator known in Iran as the Supreme Leader, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei. President Rouhani, like the presidents who came before him is a loyal servant of the regime. He was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. Nearly 700 other candidates were rejected.

This article, which contains links to Rouhani’s and Obama’s speeches as well, is an important read. 

The Real Effect of the Syrian Matter

The recent threat of military action against Assad’s Syrian forces because of the use of chemical weapons to kill 1,429 Syrian civilians raises more questions. The questions are why at this time, what was the result sought, how was that to be accomplished, and what is the effect on the US?

The first question is the one I find most disturbing. In the Syrian civil war, over 110,000 deaths have occured.  Prior to the use of chemical weapons, there was a lot of talk, but no threats of military action, so  why is the death of the 1,429 due to gas the trigger for Tomahawk missles? 

My first thought is that Obama realy did think differently over the use of gas. His “redline” reflected this feeling. He finds this particularly horrific, but how about the dead 110,000, isn’t this also horrific? (A friend suggested to me that if Obama thought killings by gun fire were horrific, he would bomb Chicago, but that’s a separate issue.)  I have a dislike for gas, as you can’t avoid it and the death is particularly painful. The President’s “redline” comment may have been a reaction to this same fear. So the answer to the question, Why at this time?, is that the President reacted visceraly to the use of gas and the photos of dead children. He shouldn’t have done so, but he did.

That raises the next question, What was the result sought?  It seems this was never figrured out at the White House or Foggy Bottom (State Department).  Launching cruise missles from destroyers does not change nations as the impact is, as John Kerry pointed out and Bill Clinton found out, incredibly small.   A Predator drone strike on Assad’s home would have sent a different, but more precise message. Furthermore, Obama said his goal was not regime change. So what was it? Was he trying to degrade the Syrian military so that the al Queda led opposition could prevail? I guess not as that is regime change. 

What has been the effect of this event? First, we have alllowed the clever Vladimir Putin to emerge as the alpha male in the Mid East and that is a major change. We want the US President to be the alpha, but American influence there and in the world, is vastly diminished. If the
President can threaten Assad cver his use of chemical weapons, be faced down by the Russians, and have his action rejected by the Congress, he has no power anywhere. This is a major threat to US influence and our world position. Obama said he would fundamentaly change the US, and he has done so.
Does this now mean that any leader, say in Venezuela, can use chemical weapons, and fear naught from the US? I think that is the outcome of this matter. The President conducts foreigh policy, but now that is subject to Russian approval and congressional agreement. A significant degrading of his regime.

What is the danger from this degraded position? A President will attempt to restore his luster and to do so, he must take action somewhere. His instinct ante is to not do anything that’s why he did not send aircraft to protect our Ambassador in Benghazi. His visceral reaction to the gassed kids in Syria put him in an image protection mode that was dashed on the rocks. He will think of something and that is problematic. He has already threatened the Iranian government, for example. There is also the domestic consideration that rattling sabers in the Middle East distracts from the real domestic problems we have to deal with.  That may be the major focus for Obama, who is first a domestic politician facing a congressional election in just over a year.

The Syrian threat is now over and Assad has prevailed and has empowered his Russian ally.  This story will end with the end of the Syrian Civll War but the effect on our Presidency will linger for a long time. Even our al Queda allies in Syria have voiced displeasure with Obama, and that is  something I never thought I would write.

Immigration and the Mexican View of Our History

In a speech at the anthropological Museum in Mexico City on May 3, 2013, President Obama said it may seem that “we seek to impose ourselves on Mexican sovereignty,”  This sort of comment will pass over the heads of most Americans who are largely oblivious to our history with Mexico. However, it will hit Mexicans hard as they view the territorial limits of Mexico in the 1840s as their true limits and something they wish to recover. Mexicans view the “Mexican War (1846-1848)” like the Civil War is considered in Alabama; they call it “La Guerra de ’47.

I was also oblivious to this Mexican view until I had lunch with a Mexican law professor in Mexico City in July, 1985. At that time, I was studying Mexican Law as a student enrolled in a University of Houston program. During this lunch, the professor asked ,“What you think of this Chicano movement in your country?” I answered by saying, ‘I understand that there is a historical wave of immigration back and forth across the border reflecting job opportunities in the two countries. It is nothing of note.” He laughed at me as he said, “Boy, do you have this wrong. Here we call this La Reconquista (the reconquest) of old Mexico.” I was shocked by the comment and asked, in typical American bravado, And how do you suppose to do that?” He smiled and said, “The same way you did it to us.” I was floored as I quickly recognized that he meant that where illegal Anglo settlers moved into Mexican Texas in the 1830s and became strong enough to defeat Gen. Santa Anna’s troops at San Jacinto in 1836, illegal Mexicans would move into the United States. General Santa Anna made peace and ceded Texas to Sam Houston’s Texans. The  peace treaty has never been recognized by the Mexican government that claimed Santa Anna lacked authority, a plausible argument.  A map of Mexico in 1845 can be found here and it may surprise you.

Americans, in possession of Texas, now looked west and began to infiltrate Mexican California. John Fremont was the most famous “illegal.”. By 1845, tensions were intense and war was declared in 1846 over an incident where Mexican troops killed some Americans. The Mexican War, 1846-1848 found American troops in Mexico City and our Marines still sing of the “Halls of Montezuma” in their hymn. The war ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that gave the United States the Rio Grande border and ownership of Las Californias Norte that we now call California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado. The Gadsden purchase added to that in 1853 and the borders have not changed since then. The land shift has been dramatic, but is not recognized in the US. As I said, it is an important part of Mexico’s history and is something to which Mexicans pay attention.

My studies included Mexican land ownership laws. Now, no foreigner can have a clear title to land within 100 km of land borders with the US or Guatemala, or 50 km from the sea-coast. This is why foreigners never obtain a clear title to their condominiums in Acapulco, for example, but have to buy through a bank or Mexican citizen. I asked why this law was necessary and my professor said, “We’ve had a lot of trouble with foreigners on our borders in the past.” Sam Houston? I think so.

President Obama’s making reference to our imposing of sovereignty over Mexican territory seems to be recognizing that some Mexican claim remains. The law provides clear title obtained through conquest and treaty and that is the case here. but the reference to Mexico’s historical claims to the southwest is troubling as it may increase the tensions between the American and Mexican illegal immigrant populations. Then, when I read that the proposed immigration bill being considered in Congress may allow 30 million Mexicans to illegally enter the US, I’m very concerned that La Reconquista may actually be working, at least it is progressing very well up until now.