The President and the Pakistani: The Reality

The President and the Pakistani, currently running at the Waterloo East Theater claims to be based on:

The incredible chapter in the life of Barack Obama, when he lived in a crime-ridden and violent neighbourhood with an illegal Pakistani immigrant, this is a gripping play about a night when a hunt for the truth exposes the lies we want to believe in.

Barack Obama did indeed share a sixth floor walk-up in Harlem with a Pakistani by the name of Sohale Siddiqi in the early eighties. The play portrays the idealistic Obama struggling to pay the rent in a filthy apartment surrounded by criminals and bums. The setting of the play may be accurate, but the story is not.

First off, Barack is referred to as ‘Barry’, the given name Obama used for most of his life up to his undergraduate years at Occidental College in California. Obama later transferred to Columbia, always intending to move into nearby Harlem. Thus, he would likely have gone by ‘Barack’ during his time in New York. Going to Harlem with an illegal Pakistani immigrant was a politically-motivated gesture to demonstrate where his loyalties lay. Adopting the name ‘Barack’ was a similar gesture. As I have written before, Obama has had a life-long obsession with being ‘black enough’ to be the black leader he wanted to be.  Obama admits that he “ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself with whites”. Thus, he ended up manufacturing an identity and personal narrative. He insisted that people at Occidental call him ‘Barack’, as he recounts in a typical conversation on page 104 of Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance:

“Barack’s my given name. My father’s name. He was a Kenyan”.

“Does it mean something?”

“It means ‘Blessed’. In Arabic. My grandfather was  a Muslim”.

This was all true, but Obama had been using the name ‘Barry’ up to this point. The change was for a reason:

[C]onfusion made me question my own racial credentials… To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets [page 100].

On page 105 he admits:

What I needed was a community, I realized, a community that cut deeper than the common despair that black friends and I shared when reading the latest crime statistics, or the high fives I might exchange on a basketball court. A place where I could put down stakes and test my commitments.

So he moves to Harlem. This was a carefully considered choice. ‘The President and the Pakistani’ doesn’t make that clear. Obama didn’t need to live in a dump with low-lives. He could afford better. He found the illegal immigrant Siddiqi through wealthy Pakistani colleagues at Occidental: Imad Hussein, Mohamed Hasan Chandoo, and Wahid Hamid. Obama would visit Pakistan himself, staying at the grand estate of Muhammad Mian Soomro, who in 2007 became Pakistan’s caretaker Prime Minister.

It wasn’t allegiance to Islam that led Obama to do all this. It was an expression of racial and Third World solidarity. Siddiqi was secular, as well as a heavy drinker and drug abuser.  Obama had expressed pride in his grandfather’s conversion to Islam, purely because he felt it was evidence he was anti-white. Obama had a long interest in Nation of Islam, and his links to them and other anti-white black nationalist movements are shockingly extensive. His image of Islam as anti-European skewed his perception of his grandfather. He notoriously claimed he took part in the Mau Mau uprising and was tortured by the British. In fact, his third wife, whom Obama calls Granny, would tell Obama that his grandfather very willingly served the British and admired their ways. Plus, he only converted to Islam because he found Christianity too soft and feminine.

‘The President and the Pakistani’ begins by portraying Obama and his new friend as a comic bromance getting up to all sorts of wacky antics. It ends with Obama making a commitment to straighten up and act serious after his Pakistani friend’s dog is stabbed by drug dealers. He complains about the cocaine all over the table after he’s invited some friends over for an anti-apartheid meeting. These particular details may or may not be true. We do know, however, that Obama did swear off drugs in this period. He also started jogging. He developed the habits typical of Reagan era yuppies trying to grow up, even briefly contemplating a career in the private sector. He admits in his own account that Siddiqi said he was “becoming a bore”.

‘The’President and the Pakistani’ has proved to be a hit. But don’t believe will give you the real Obama. If it did, no theater would have it.

Barack Obama and Sohale Siqqiqi in 1981

Advertisements

Cover-Up in Benghazi

Does Mitt Romney want to win the election in November? Sometimes, I doubt it. There are echoes in this race of John McCain’s blunders in 2008, when he refused to confront Obama on the matters of Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Obama’s bizarre past writings. One only need look at a golden opportunity he appears to have missed: an Obama administration cover-up that could and should bring down a Commander in Chief.

Pat Buchanan provides the devastating details.

In summary: We now know that the September 11th attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens was observed in near real time by the State Department’s Charlene Lamb. Lamb was in contact with the security section at the Benghazi compound. Scores of men with automatic weapons and RPGs launched a night assault. There never was any protest at or near the site—not against the anti-Muslim YouTube video The Innocence of Muslims or anything else.

The next day, September 12th, Fox News and Eli Lake of The Daily Beast reported that U.S. intelligence had concluded that what happened was a planned act of terrorism. Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence had already identified some of the perpetrators as members of an al-Qaeda affiliate in the Maghreb.

Two weeks later, Obama was still blaming a video. Just like the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, had said on September 14th, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice said two days after that. We now know that these people all knew better.

Why did they lie?

It doesn’t take a genius to figure that they needed to cover-up the reality of a terrorist attack in a city they had rescued from Qaddafi’s vengeance eighteen months before.  Obama didn’t want the American public to know that Samantha Power, Susan Rice, as well the Wicked Witch of the White House herself, Hillary Clinton fouled up by promoting intervention in Libya and ended up handing a big prize to Islamists in North Africa. Chris Stevens payed a big price. There are others that need to pay up too.

Obama’s Huckstering

A 2007 speech by Barack Obama at Hampton University in Virginia has been going viral, and for good reason. The speech is yet another disturbing example of Obama or other figures in his administration stirring up racial tensions for political gain. Not only that, it shows Obama peddling an easily checkable and serious lie.

Obama delivers his address in his finest black ghetto style. From 21:45 on in the video below he starts talking about the federal government response to Hurricane Katrina. Like many others at the time, Obama accuses the government of being lackluster in response to the disaster, especially compared to its reaction in Florida after Hurricane Andrew and New York after 9/11.

It gets really interesting when he mentions the Stafford Act. This requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute as much as 10% of what the federal government does. Obama points out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the Bush administration clearly sees them as “part of the American family”.  When it comes to New Orleans, Obama tells his predominantly black audience, which includes Rev. Jeremiah Wright, “they don’t care about [it] as much”.

This speech was delivered on June 5th, 2007. The date is significant, because on May 24th, less than two weeks earlier, the  Senate had actually voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement in the case of New Orleans. Just like it had done for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent assisting New Orleans than was spent on both New York after 9/11 and Florida after Hurricane Andrew combined.

Believe me, this gets funnier.

The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, shows that the then Senator Barack Obama was present that day. And would you believe it, he was there for that vote on the  Stafford Act requirement.

And he was among the fourteen that voted against the waiver.

Obama, Edward Said, and the Politics of Identity

This month’s issue of Standpoint magazine features an editorial on one of Obama’s lesser-known intellectual influences. Of all the relationships from Obama’s past, this is one of the most troubling. And yet, when it comes to Barack Obama and Edward Said, its hard to think of two people with more similar personal histories and characters.

Barack Obama was first introduced to the postmodernist professor Edward Said when he took a class of his at Columbia University in 1982. There is no mention of this in the otherwise highly revealing Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. It warrants a mention in the more recent Barack Obama: The Story by David Maraniss. According to Maraniss, the young Obama was not impressed with Said’s over-theoretical approach and his handling of the class. Obama apparently called Said a “flake” when he handed back the students’ papers late and suddenly cancelled the class for the next term.

How much did Said’s ideas influence Obama? It would be going too far to say that he inspired Obama to become an Alinsky-style community organizer in Chicago, as Standpoint actually suggests. Obama was heading down that route well before 1982. Obama would, however, meet Said several times as a political ally and friend when climbing the political ladder in the 1990s:

From left to right: Michelle Obama, then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago. Edward Said delivered the keynote speech.

I don’t want to go so much into the links between Edward Said’s Orientalism and Barack Obama’s own worldview, if there is any. What I find more interesting in this case is the personal identities of the two men, and how they have presented their narratives. Here we find remarkable similarities. I believe both Obama and Said largely invented their personal narratives in order to make gains in their respective fields as well as to serve ideological goals.

Obama

In the case of Obama, I highly  recommend Steve Sailer’s masterwork America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance”, which is a thoughtful analysis of Obama’s intellectual and ideological foundations based on his own 1995 autobiography. This book is very different in style and content from Obama’s Audacity of Hope in 2006, for understandable reasons.

Sailer examines the obsession Obama had, from a very young age, over whether he was “black enough” to be a black leader. Obama had good reason to doubt his ‘blackness’. After all,  he was mostly raised by his devoted white grandparents in Hawaii, where he enjoyed a very privileged upbringing and went to the finest schools. It was clearly difficult for Obama to write Dreams from My Father as a book of suffering and conflict, as he tries to do in order to (as Sailer says) “turn himself into an authentic angry black man”. Given that most of his troubles lay solely within his own head, the Obama of this book comes off as a mere self-obsessed whinger.

Every aspect of Obama is incredibly politicized. In Dreams, Obama admits he “ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself with whites”. Part of this act was his fundamental decision to identify with his black scoundrel and bigamist of a biological father – who abandoned him at the age of two and his mother at 19 – over the white family that actually raised him. His  mother, Ann Dunham, was possibly at fault here. As she grew to resent her Indonesian second husband, in part due to his business activities with Americans, she began to ingrain the young Obama with romantic notions of his Kenyan father, an anti-western socialist. Ann would leave her son with his grandparents in Hawaii on two occasions; the second time to do research for her 1067-page anthropological dissertation with the hilarious title of Peasant Blacksmithing in Indonesia: Surviving and Thriving Against All Odds.

While living in New York, Obama even made the decision to break up with his serious white girlfriend of a year for reasons of race: “Well… there was a woman in New York that I loved. She was white… I pushed her away… She couldn’t be black, she said. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. She could only be herself, and that wasn’t enough”. Eventually he would marry a woman named Michelle, another figure obsessed with her own blackness. Michelle’s doctoral dissertation at Princeton is called Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community. That’s seven words, two of them ‘black’.

Across 460 pages of Dreams, Barack Obama never strays from the subject of race, and never ceases to agonize over his “racial credentials”. He claims that from the age of ten “I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant”. Because of the desperate shortage of racial tension and black people in Hawaii, he actually had to learn about being black from “TV, movies, the radio; those were places to start. Pop culture was color-coded, after all, an arcade of images from which you could cop a walk, a talk, a step, a style”. He found meaning in his blackness and the grievance he developed against the race of his own mother and grandparents in Hawaii. The happiest moment in this autobiography is when his alcoholic half-brother Roy’s converts to Islam and asserts his black identity by changing his name to Abongo.

Obama’s maternal grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, mother Ann Dunham, Maya Soetoro and Barry Soetero/Barack Obama

Said

The case of Edward Said is similarly absurd, but at least he didn’t have to learn about being an Arab from TV. Like Obama, Said manufactured a narrative, downplaying a wealthy upbringing in Egypt and America in favor of portraying himself as a Palestinian refugee. This issue briefly came to public attention in 1999 when an Israeli-American lawyer and academic by the name of Justus Reid Weiner claimed to have found proof that Said lied about much of his early life. These allegations have been hotly contested. Here, I will stick to what we do know about Edward Said.

In a 1998 issue of the London Review of Books, Said reminisced: “I was born in Jerusalem and spent most of my formative years there… after 1948… my entire family became refugees, in Egypt”. Said claimed that he and his family were kicked out of  their “beautiful old house” in the wealthy Arab neighborhood of Talbiya, Jerusalem. He frequently posed dramatically before this building during a documentary film he did that same year for the BBC, called In Search of Palestine.

What Said did not make clear is that his aunt owned the house in Talbiya. Said’s immediate family often visited Jerusalem and stayed in the house, part of which was also the Yugoslavian consulate. Edward Said was born in Jerusalem on one of these trips, but the family’s permanent address recorded on his birth certificate is in Cairo and the line for a local address is left blank. Said’s father, Wadie (or William), was an American citizen and permanent resident of Cairo nine years prior to his son’s birth in 1935. There he owned and ran the very successful Standard Stationery Company, which grew to include a branch in Alexandria in 1929 and eventually a second store in Cairo itself. Said’s mother Hilda (or Musa), a Christian born in Nazareth, but of Lebanese extraction, moved to Cairo on marrying Wadie in 1932. There they resided for decades, including many years in Cairo’s most affluent neighborhood on the island of Zamalek in the Nile River.

Curiously, while Said wrote lots of moving words about growing up in the house in Talbiya, claiming to remember exactly the rooms where he first read Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan, nowhere did he ever mention the presence of a Yugoslavian consulate upstairs. Considering the consulate attracted numerous visitors, ranging from regular seekers of visas to diplomats and even the King of Yugoslavia himself, it seems a great oversight on Said’s part. Golde Meir herself showed  up for a formal function only weeks before Said claims his family was forced to flee the country. Such trivial matters escaped young Edward’s memory.

Said made an interesting claim while speaking at a Palestinian university, alleging that Martin Buber, arguably the greatest moral philosopher of the 20th century, lived in the house from which his family had fled. The “great apostle of coexistence between Arabs and Jews”, he bitterly remarked, “didn’t mind living in an Arab house whose inhabitants had been displaced”. Powerful stuff, but the real story is much more interesting. Martin Buber and his family, all refugees from Nazi Germany, did indeed move into the ground-floor and basement of the house in Talbiya in 1938. However, Said’s aunt Nabiha Yusef evicted the Bubers in 1942. This memorable event took place when Edward Said insisted he was growing up in the same house. The Bubers claimed Mrs. Yusef broke the lease and contested the eviction in court. Once again, Said forgets all about it. Buber’s granddaughters have testified that they remember Said’s aunt and her children, but not little Edward and his four sisters. Probably because he just wasn’t there.

The (darkly) funny thing is that in 1952 a revolutionary mob burned Wadie Said’s flagship store in Cairo to the ground. Several years later President Nasser actually forced Said’s family out of the country after nationalizing the family business. Said didn’t write much about this devastating loss. He never wailed about it for the cameras of the BBC. This is because he supported Nasser’s pan-Arab socialism, and, of course, the loss couldn’t be blamed on Israel.

There is another aspect of Said’s fabricated history aside from the question of where he grew up. This revolves around his  copious outpourings on the subject of  ‘identity’. Said spoke endlessly about how he as a “Palestinian (sic) going to school in Egypt, with an English first name, an American passport” grew up with “no certain identity at all”. His 2000 memoir, titled Out of Place was dedicated to this deceptive reminiscing. In fact, decades before Out of Place, Said revealed in his personal correspondence that despite his Christian background and western education, he never felt like a minority in Egypt and regarded his heritage as “Arab-Islamic” (this is shown in Efraim Karsh’s excellent Islamic Imperialism: A History).

Said pulled off a great trick. He endeared himself to Palestinians, the wider Arab and Muslim world and (most importantly) white western leftists. He would devote an entire career to hating imperialism, despite his suspicious fondness for the structures of the Ottoman Empire and Islamic rule over the Iberian peninsula (again, demonstrated in the excellent work of Karsh).

Barack Obama is quite similar to Said. He’s run into problems over his birth certificate. He also became the black leader he wanted to be, but not exclusively a leader of blacks along the lines of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. His speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention emphasized the “improbable love” between his white mother and black father. Obama became America’s Half-Blood Prince, a healer in the great racial divide. With the election in November, it would be wise to reflect on his accomplishment.

Obama, Romney, and Dependency

Only a few days ago, the Daily Caller obtained a complete audio recording of a speech in 1998 by then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. He was speaking at a Loyola College forum on community organizing and policy-making  Loyola refused all requests to release the full tape or transcript of the talk. Some good soul in Chicago who got permission to view the existing videotape recorded the full speech secretly.

The most disturbing aspect of Obama’s speech is his idea that welfare recipients and “the working poor” form a coalition -“a majority coalition”, he says – that can be mobilized to advance “progressive” policies and continually elect the Democrats.

Obama at Loyola, 1998.

The speech is an interesting accompaniment to the now notorious words of Romney in Boca Raton, Fla., where he said that the 47% of the population who are net gainers from the welfare state will vote for Obama “no matter what”.

The consensus in the media is that these words uttered at a private fundraiser amounted to a “gaffe”, and Romney has been apologetic about the whole thing. I for one believe that Romney has nothing to be sorry for (although his “47%” would include students and retirees, and that certainly needs to be clarified). Indeed, Obama hints that his dream coalition would be over 50% of the voting population.

The issue of massive dependence on state welfare should be what the 2012 election is all about, and I hope it now dominates its final stages. Its hugely important for libertarians to be involved in this debate, even those of us disenchanted with a race between two men who can both reasonably claim to have invented Obamacare. Obama and Romney are correct on one issue: people who appear to gain more from the welfare state are not likely to support the people who agitate for smaller government. Its fair to say that Obama and many Democrats are deliberately seeking to make the majority of the population dependent on handouts. This will ensure permanent victory for the “party of government”. That will make Americans poorer and less free as long as the charade can be propped up, and it all turns into Greece.

Can the Republic of Jefferson be prevented from becoming the Hellenic? Whats most worrying is that we are fairly close to this situation already: almost half of all U.S. wage-earners pay no income tax. 70% get more in dollars from the government than they pay in with taxes. That half and their dependents will receive a plethora of benefits: “free” education from K-12, Pell Grants, Medicaid, rent supplements, food stamps, unemployment checks and many, many more. Why should these people throw their lot in with conservatives and libertarians who will reduce taxes they don’t even pay, while cutting or abolishing their benefits? As George Bernard Shaw said, a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

John C. Calhoun, America’s scariest-looking Vice President but a towering intellectual, foresaw this situation centuries ago:

The necessary result … of the unequal fiscal action of the government is to divide the community into two great classes; one consisting of those who … pay the taxes … and bear exclusively the burden of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds, through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into taxpayers and tax consumers.

He added:

This would give rise to two parties and to violent conflicts and struggles between them, to obtain the control of the government.

We are there, Mr. Calhoun. We are already there.

Debunking Clinton on Economic Recovery

Bill Clinton notably defended Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention by saying that no president could have gotten the United States out of the recession in just one term. Yet he also claims Barack Obama might have been able to sort this mess out faster if it wasn’t for those darn Republicans and their obstructionist ways. Is this true?

The history of economic downturns and government reactions to them tells us otherwise. Thomas Sowell writes about this over at Townhall today. He notes that “for the first 150 years of this country’s existence, the federal government felt no great need to “do something” when the economy turned down”. Laissez-faire was the traditional rough guide in regards to economic crises before 1929. Lets compare recessions, then and now.

The first major financial crisis in America was the Panic of 1819. In his definitive work on the subject, Murray N. Rothbard writes that the federal government’s only action was to ease the terms of payment for its own land debtors. The Panic was history by 1923. That’s less than one full Presidential term, Mr. Clinton. Martin Van Buren, a highly underrated President, stayed the laissez-faire course during the Panic of 1837. That took five years to finally get over, but we wont quibble over a year or so, as Van Buren was a good fellow. Subsequent federal governments followed a similar approach, the occasional nasty exception being state governments which sometimes permitted insolvent banks to continue operating without paying their obligations.

The last of the real laissez-faire Presidents was Warren G. Harding. In the 1920–21 depression, unemployment hit 11.7 at its height. This is higher than its reached so far under Obama. Harding – the unsung hero of the day – did nothing, possibly because he was too busy boozing and fornicating. Wage rates were permitted to fall. Government spending and taxes were actually reduced significantly. This largely forgotten depression was over in one year. The Austrian School economist Dr. Benjamin M. Anderson called it “our last natural recovery to full employment.” Unemployment came to 2.4 percent in 1923.

Unfortunately, the laissez-faire tradition was abandoned after 1929 when progressive, Keynesian policies took hold of governments. This was true for both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. Some still perceive Hoover as a laissez-faire man, but let him tell the story in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 1933:

[W]e might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action. . . . No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times. . . . For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered. . . . They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.

Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system anew breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for . . . “the common run of men and women.” Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom. . . . We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.

Modern studies continue to prove that the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt only prolonged the Great Depression by several years. Well into Roosevelt’s second term unemployment stood at the terrible rate of 15 percent, indicating that the much-vaunted New Deal was an utter failure. Obama is making the same mistakes, prolonging a crisis that could have been over already if men like Van Buren and Harding were in Washington today. This was proven by Reagan. According to Sowell again:

Something similar [to 1920-21] happened under Ronald Reagan. Unemployment peaked at 9.7 percent early in the Reagan administration. Like Harding and earlier presidents, Reagan did nothing, despite outraged outcries in the media.

The economy once again revived on its own. Three years later, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent — and it kept on falling, as the country experienced twenty years of economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment…

Despite demands that Mitt Romney spell out his plan for reviving the economy, we can only hope that Governor Romney plans to stop the government from intervening in the economy and gumming up the works, so that the economy can recover on its own.

Amen to that.

Thoughts On ObamaCare, or: Why We Are All Doomed

The nastiest aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are the individual mandate, guaranteed issue and the partial community rating. The individual mandate survives thanks to the Supreme Court deeming it a tax today, even though Obama said it wasn’t. It stipulates that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare, or other public insurance programs, purchase an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty.

So the government forces poor people to buy insurance from large companies. Just like they encouraged poor people to become homeowners and patronize banks, fueling a housing bubble and economic disaster. Just like how they feel that the maximum number of people possible need to go to college, because if 20% of the population go to college and get good jobs, then if 50% of the population go then 50% of the population will have good jobs. Few realize this is just diluting the value of a degree two-and-a-half times over, making the parchment increasingly expensive, causing our horrific levels of graduate unemployment/underemployment and creating yet another bubble.

Remember when insurance was a way of protecting against the risk of some low-probability/high-cost misfortune befalling you? It feels rather silly to point this out, but coming of child-bearing age and choosing to use contraception is not an insurable event. The United States is attempting an insane experiment that completely changes the nature of insurance. Americans are actually an over-insured people. This has been going on since World War II, when the Roosevelt administration decreed that compensation for labor in the form of employment-based health insurance does not count as taxable income, creating some very perverse incentives. Americans rely too much on third-party payment, whether by governments or private companies. Obamacare exacerbates this problem. Paying a third party  to cover the costs of predictable, routine health costs leads to prices shooting upwards.

The guaranteed issue and the partial community rating compel insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to most pre-existing conditions. Obamacare will thus turn every large insurance corporation into the equivalent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, requiring permanent taxpayer bailouts to stay afloat. When they fail, the corporations will be nationalized and unfettered capitalism will be blamed. Which I have always believed is Obama’s end goal.

Remember all those mortgages banks gave to people without the ability to pay back in recent years? This is the same thing, with insurance. How much hand-wringing do I have to do here, dammit? Why do we never learn?

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

By the way, I suspect many of us will be arguing with our colleagues at work or university on the role of the state in healthcare. I recommend reading these articles to start pumping you with a little intellectual ammunition:

What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us, by Yuri N. Maltsev

Medical Care Facts and Fables, by Thomas Sowell

Azaria Chamberlain, The Cult of Sentimentality, and Racial Politics: Rants and Recommendations for This Week

So, Azaria Chamberlain was killed by a dingo after all. Nice work, Australians: all it took was three decades and years from an innocent mother’s life.

I’ve only recently become familiar with this case as it features prominently in Theodore Dalrymple’s powerful little volume Spoilt Rotten! The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality; a copy of which I received as a birthday present back in February.

Linda Chamberlain, mother of Azaria and two other children, was on an outing in the Australian outback in 1980 when her daughter disappeared. She went to the police and suggested her infant might have been taken by a dingo. Simply because she maintained a cool, unemotional demeanor before the police and the public she was deemed suspect. On flimsy and circumstantial evidence and some dodgy forensics, she was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison. Linda Chamberlain served four years before the evidence was discredited and the case remained unsolved until this very week. Had Linda cried for the cameras in 1980, the poor woman would likely never have had to undergo the ordeal the Australian police and public made for her.

In his book, Dalrymple deems sentimentality “the progenitor, the godparent, the midwife of brutality”; which has become a serious danger to sensible policy-making, as well as a corruption of human relations. It analyses similar cases where the media and the mob interpreted the lack of emotion from a parent after the murder or disappearance of their children as evidence of guilt, such as in the disgraceful treatment of the McCanns and Joanne Lees (another Austrialian bungle). He also includes the outcry over the lack of emotion shown by the Queen after the death of Princess Diana, contending that “the tabloid newspapers carried out what can only be called a campaign of bullying against the sovereign” and that this was simply “bullying rather than expressing any genuine grief”. Dalrymple links the toxic cult of sentimentality with everything from the decline of British schooling to the Make Poverty History idiocy. Its a great work that slaughters many a sacred cow.

Read the saga of Linda Chamberlain, then read Dalrymple’s book, and prepare to get angry.

On another note, I’ve been reading the more recently released Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department by the inspiring J. Christian Adams. Adams is a former Department of Justice Attorney who resigned in disgust after witnessing firsthand the crooked, racially-motivated decisions of the Obama/Holder regime. Fascinating revelations in the book include how Eric Holder has prevented the prosecution of black mobs in Philadelphia – who have been intimidating and assaulting white voters at voting booths – while he has tried at the same time to instill fear into black communities by claiming his opponents are trying to block their access to the polls.  This is extremely disturbing stuff, and Adams is putting the names and incriminating statements of many officials in the Department out there for us all to see. The fact that nobody is suing him is a surefire indicator that the book is all truth. These scandals are part of a broader Democratic Party strategy to create a sense of siege among American blacks, while portraying themselves as their protectors. The Obama regime has helped to ferment what is nothing less than a censored race war, and the lid can’t be held down forever.

Read this book, and prepare to get even angrier.

Obama’s Incredible Smear Machine – Was Cain The Latest Victim?

Some readers may like to view the post I wrote in August about, among other things, the amazing tendency for Barack Obama’s electoral opponents to have their confidential divorce papers leaked to the press and their campaigns ruined. Blair Hull and Jack Ryan might have a new companion in Herman Cain, who has been on the receiving end of highly suspect allegations of sexual harassment. I found the complaints against Cain very unusual, considering that several were initially made anonymously. These drove the media into a frenzy, despite the fact there were no real details about what the harassment was supposed to entail. Instead we were fed impossibly vague stories of a woman who felt Cain had “gotten too close” to her. Another claimed Cain simply made her “feel” he was coming onto her.

Only after a week or so did Sharon Bialek step forward and provide a specific, disturbing account. This woman, by startling coincidence, lived in the same building as David Axelrod, the political consultant best known as Barack Obama’s top adviser as well as his chief strategist in 2008. He may very well be again in 2012. Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has made a big deal out of the fact that Cain has never lived in Chicago despite all the allegations originating from there.  However, it must be said that Bialek claimed the events happened in Washington D.C. when she traveled there for an interview with Cain. Yet strange it is that all the harassment is alleged to have taken place during Cain’s time at the helm of the National Restaurant Association. This is a mere three year period out of his long life and career. Why were these three years so marked by misogyny and lewd behavior, that Cain has never been accused of in the times before or since? The fact that it was Sheila O’ Grady who dug up Herman Cain’s personnel records from the National Restaurant Association says a lot. O’ Grady is an Axelrod confidante and former chief of staff to Chicago’s former mayor Richard M. Daley. She now works for the Illinois Restaurant Association. By all accounts, this girl lives to spin.

ABC reports that Bialek has had nine jobs in seventeen years and has filed for bankruptcy twice. Relatives have referred to her as a ‘gold-digger’. More unusual methods such as voice-analyzing software have been deployed to cast her as untrustworthy.

Another interesting tidbit: it seems no Hollywood types, American liberals, the usual black spokespeople or even folks of the Congressional Black Caucus have helped a brother out by playing the race card in the way so many have done for Barack Obama. A man who is only half-black, after all, and a lot farther from the typical black-American experience than Herman Cain. Is it possible that the Obama crowd feel a black opponent would do their man the most damage?

I have never endorsed Cain for President. I’m not doing so now. Still, I can’t help but like the guy, and these brutal attacks have only improved his standing in my eyes. After all, how could a man with the smile seen in the wonderful ad below be even a little bit pervy?

Obama’s Perplexing Past

There has been much talk of Presidential elections on this blog of late, so it feels strange to have not mentioned the political theatre in the United States at all.

I happened to be really enjoying the Republican race, up until Rick Perry climbed aboard. Before him, it seemed some real anti-Establishment types were the big stars in this competition. Ron Paul has to be my favourite for his long-time promotion of the Austrian School of Economics, but it was fantastic to see another great libertarian, Gary Johnson, in the running. That said, I’ve had a bit of a forbidden love for Michelle Bachmann (she reads Ludwig von Mises at the beach, you know), and it’s been heartening to see her and Ron crushing some big established names like the nasty Newt Gingrich. The American people are clearly tired of the same old Washington elites that seem to never go away, and no wonder.

Of course, whoever wins the Republican race will have to face Oh Bummer, which has been a very dangerous activity for some people to say the least. Barack Obama has a somewhat unusual electoral history that remarkably hasn’t managed to raise the eyebrows it really should.

For instance, Obama’s competition in the Democratic nomination for the Illinois Senate race in 2004 was the wealthy entrepreneur, Blair Hull. Hull is a highly intelligent man, who has an academic background in mathematics from the University of California, possesses an MBA, and he attended the Harvard Business School. His famously innovative trading company was bought by Goldman Sachs in 1999 for $531 million. Blair Hull always came off as modest, even meek to some, but he was clearly the favourite to win the nomination. His lead in the polls over Barack Obama varied between 20% and 80%.

Blair Hull, right.

Then it all went very wrong for Blair Hull.

Out of the blue and shortly before the nomination date, Blair Hull’s divorce papers leaked to the public somehow. The formerly secret papers contained details of allegations from his ex-wife of serious physical abuse against her. I have met people who know Blair Hull. Not one actually believed Hull was the kind of guy to engage in this sort of behaviour. While a lot of people in the know didn’t find the allegations at all credible, sensational stories spread and Hull could not handle it. He was cut out for equations, not the political cesspool.

Obama was.

This seems like politics as usual, but it gets even fishier when it comes to the actual race for the Senate. The GOP had elected the popular Jack Ryan, who was formerly married to actress Jeri Ryan (Star Trek: Voyager, Boston Public, Shark). Guess how Jack Ryan’s campaign was ruined? A court ordered his divorce papers to be released to the public, papers that contained some embarrassing allegations from his ex-wife, that’s how. Details and rumours of these documents had been circulating since Ryan first went for the nomination, and the media were making demands on the couple and Ryan’s campaign. The big story from the papers turned out not to be physical abuse, but pressure Jack Ryan had supposedly put on his wife to get her to perform at live sex shows with him in New Orleans, Paris and Amsterdam. Those specifically embarrassing papers were not expected to be released, due to a mutually agreed request by the couple. The courts had agreed prior to this not to release such information for the benefit of the Ryan’s only child, so the whole thing is quite perplexing. Obama ended up running against the less popular Alan Keyes after Jack Ryan resigned from the race.

Barack Obama always liked to portray himself as a person not born into money, and outside the political establishment. Some outside the mainstream media have made other suggestions. For one, there appears to be a fascinating connection between Barack Obama’s mother and Timothy Geithner’s father, Peter Geithner.

Peter Geithner was head of the Ford Foundation’s microfinance program in Asia for a period in the early 1980. The microfinance programs were developed in Indonesia by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, Barack Obama’s mother. The Ford Foundation says “they met at least once in Jakarta”. Many have claimed the Ford Foundation in Asia was historically ‘honeycombed’ by the CIA, and there is some suspicion that Peter Geithner was an agent. In a new book released this year called ‘A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother’, it is written that the Obama’s mother actually worked for a period at the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia when Barack Obama was very young, something which was not at all to her liking.

 I’m no expert in this history, but I would love to know more. There is no ‘smoking gun’ when it comes to proving an extensive relationship between Obama’s mother, Geithner and other heavyweights. I can find no evidence positively fingering Peter Geithner (or Obama’s mother, for that matter) as a CIA asset.

The question must still be asked however: was Obama being groomed for the Presidency for a very long time?