The Coup That Isn't: America Abuses a Friend

Please read Mary Anastasia O'Grady's excellent essay about the Obama Administration's treatment of Honduras' Supreme Court,"Hillary's Honduras Obsession."

What We Dare Not Think Or Speak

[Please see note here.]

The New York Times columnist who is neither frank nor rich (rhetorically speaking) opined recently in print and radio that the increase in sales of ammunition and guns after the Obama victory last fall was rooted in the fear and hatred of black men. Mr. Frank Rich casually argued that racists were gathering arms in fear of Mr. Obama, of Mr. Obama's blackness.

To say that Mr. Rich is misinformed is to compliment him. To pay him to write such absurdities is a sin incomprehensible. Of course, fear-mongering is lucrative. How else to explain the successes of those who are of Mr. Rich's ilk?

It may surprise Mr. Rich, and his unthinking fans, to learn that many Americans stocked up on guns and ammo precisely at that moment in American history when the President-elect of the United States was prognosticating economic gloom of such proportion that the Great Depression seemed a boom. In fact, Mr. Obama continues to ramble on about the dire "consequences" of economic inaction, particularly regarding health care's oppressive burden on America's economy; he mentioned the "worst economy" since the Great Depression, or some such hyperbole, just the other night in his health care reform speech to Congress.

Clearly certain Americans took Mr. Obama at his word. Listening closely to him, with hearts full of trust, they prepared themselves for the worst: If all economic hell were to break loose, bullets just might put food on the table. Venison may not be an infinite source of protein, but it surely will work in a pinch.

Moreover Americans uncertain of Mr. Obama's commitment to national defense and homeland security could not rest without something to quell their heightened anxieties. Guns and ammo might not stop a Chinese invasion or a Muslim mob descending from the north brandishing dirty bombs, but it might give a few Americans a chance to catch a refugee boat headed for Puerto Rico.

Obviously Mr. Rich's claims are rooted in his ignorance, or they are rooted in a cynical manipulation of fact in order to sow fears of a hostile, gun-toting mob poised to storm the White House should the "Boy" get "uppity." Either way, he should be shunned at every turn.

DEMOCRATS AND RACE

Over the past few months, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web Today" has done an outstanding job confronting the charges of racism hurled at critics of Barack Obama. His most compelling observation is that the racism is always -- at least in the examples he gives -- inferred by the person making the charge. In other words, those who claim to find racism in certain arguments or locutions do not find that racism expressed explicitly or really even implicitly; they find it in their own inference from or interpretation of what they've heard. In short, it is a racism they bring themselves: they are the ones imposing it on the words of someone they accuse of a heavily veiled racism. Mr. Taranto calls this nasty habit "imputing racism by free association." (In biblical scholarship it is known as eisegesis -- reading meaning into something; eisegesis is the antithesis of exegesis -- reading the meaning out of something.)

Such describes Ms. Maureen Dowd's cogitations while interpreting Rep. Joe Wilson's indiscreet accusation of prevarication during Barack Obama's speech last Wednesday night: Mr. Wilson shouted "You lie!" and Maureen Dowd heard, "You lie -- boy!" Editors at the Athens (GA) Banner-Herald committed the sin of eisegesis in their exegesis of Sen. Saxby Chambliss' opinion of Mr. Obama before his big health care speech (#113) to Congress: Mr. Chambliss said "I think he's going to have to express some humility based on what we've seen around the country during August, and that's not his inclination" and the editors in Athens heard Chambliss say the racially-charged "the president is getting 'uppity'." Boy.

What motivates this is really something rather insidious. There seems ample evidence that some Democrats long for racism in America. They hope for it and, not necessarily finding it, they impute it, as Taranto says, onto others, claiming the racism is subtle, implied; a subliminal message only they truly descry. This writer last week ventured into a leftists' lair, a blog of true obscenity: there it was a given that Republicans and the conservative nut-jobs out in the country's hinterlands were working toward the assassination of the president. Such leftists, it seemed, were actually hoping for it, perhaps to vindicate their deeply held suspicion that Republicans really do hate blacks, especially "uppity" ones. The leftist argument was that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh were fomenting a hysteria that could only lead to a sniper's well-aimed round. And please note the evidence given: Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Exhibits A and B.

Of course, I recognize that I am imputing onto others things they have not explicitly said. Granted, certain leftists have asserted that assassination seems inevitable, a ghastly assertion if ever one existed, but I wonder who is actually doing the fomenting. Seriously, only Democrats would stand to gain politically, i.e., they'd gain a whole boatload of political capital in the form of an entire nation's sympathy, if anything ill should befall the nation's current president. Perhaps some of the sickest supporters of Barack Obama who hurl their charges of racism from their dark haunts on the left are actually, though unwittingly, working toward throwing the president under the bus themselves. It is a truly disturbing thought; I shudder to even type it here. But when people who foment racism in their very denunciations of it wonder aloud about the president's safety, is it a strain to wonder whether such wonderings are more than mere concern?

THE LEFT AND VIOLENCE

In closing, it might be a good idea for those on the left who "worry" about political violence to recall that political violence is, without question, usually if not exclusively the option most preferred by leftists. Soviet, Chinese and Albanian abuses of humanity are forever remembered, at least among those who dare stare leftism in the face. Cambodia's killing fields were not the work of conservatives; progressives believe violence is actually the force of history -- "history is on our side" -- and that such violence is, by definition, progress; such was the very prescription of the Pol Pot regime for all that it believed stood in the way of history.

The Weather Underground was a leftist community organization, and it loved the brilliant rhetoric of a bomb. The clenched fist of the Black Power movement was utterly militant; Che Guevera and Fidel Castro were not known for their diplomacy. Adolf Hitler was no conservative, socialist that he was. And Lee Harvey Oswald may have assassinated a beloved American president, but it was not conservative talk-radio that fueled his animus. It was the words of Karl Marx. Leftists are generally a murderous bunch, their alleged pacifism, and compassion for the working people, notwithstanding.

A self-reflective soul, or so one would think, might want to consider the history of political violence before suggesting right-wingers pose a threat to the United States of America.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

On War In Afghanistan: The Quote of the Day

It may seem a sacrilege on this day to quote something as politically charged as James Taranto's words below, but Mr. Taranto is actually writing about what was said at a 9/11 memorial service this morning by Barack Obama. Regardless, Mr. Taranto's words are the quote of the day (thus far):

Remember when these guys [the Democrats in power] used to complain that President Bush was "distracted" from Afghanistan by Iraq? If the U.S. is attacked by terrorists on Obama's watch, it may be written that Americans died because we had an insurance salesman when we needed a commander in chief.

The increasing drumbeat of defeatism on Afghanistan (which includes a smattering of right-wing isolationists along with mainstream and left-wing Democrats) leads us to think that maybe Iraq was a distraction after all--a distraction for Democrats, who seem to have in their DNA a drive to relive the glorious defeat in Vietnam. [Best of the Web Today, 9.11.09]

Fouad Ajami On How Mr. Obama Is Fighting The "Good War" After 9/11

Consider taking a few minutes to read Fouad Ajami's incisive essay, "9/11 and the 'Good War'," published in the Wall Street Journal.

[Replay of a Replay] Remembering: Kneeling At The Corner Of Church And Liberty

9.11.09: I forgot that on this date last year both Barack Obama and John McCain visited Ground Zero together. Interesting. I wonder if they will be at Ground Zero today commemorating the 8th anniversary of the date's tragic events. Regardless, I post what I wrote both last year on this day in history and what I wrote a few years before. Peace. BG

_____________________

[It is another cloudless morning here in New England, just like the morning seven years ago. Back then, two planes were already in the morning sky; observers on the ground might have seen them from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont or New York. There would be a different flight plan that day.

Today, 9/11/08, both John McCain and Barack Obama will visit Ground Zero. In honor of that visit, and in honor of that infamous and painful day, I repost a reflection I wrote several years after 9/11/01. Tomorrow, I will offer another reflection, I think, if I feel so moved.]

Yesterday morning, Friday, July 1, I walked west on Liberty Street and came to a slow stop. It was my first time to visit the World Trade Center since it became Ground Zero. I could see the wide-open 16-acre crater left in downtown Manhattan. But it was not the view that stopped me, but something much smaller. For there, in the southeast corner of Ground Zero, stood a street sign that, for me, was full of symbolic irony. I was at the corner of Church and Liberty.

I noted the irony, perhaps with bitterness touching my heart. And then I walked into the open space, tears filling my eyes, sobs erupting from deep within.

I had not expected this. I had not expected to want to fall to my knees, to wail on the ground, to daven before a new sort of Wailing Wall. I had not expected to feel that I could never leave this place; that I could never go back to something simple, safe, tidy, even naive. I had not expected to want to keep this hole in my heart; this hole from which people leapt and fell through tumult and smoke and confusion.

There was no surprise, however, at the enormity. I had always understood that; had felt it; had known its significance. I always understood the mechanics and the engineering; the aerodynamics and the flight paths. I had already stood on the ledge of a broken window; I had fallen. I had huddled with my child in the back of a plane; felt the pressure change in my ears and the turbulence of a bad pilot; I had seen the sparkling Hudson and the September blue; the smoke ahead; and I had felt the tipping of the wings as the engines were throttled full. I had waited for death to come in 3,000 different ways; and yet my imagination remained intact enough to remind me that I had not died even once.

What I had not expected were the tears. I thought that I had passed through that. I thought that I was, if not insouciant, so to speak, I was at least through with all the grief. But I was not. And clearly neither were many of the others walking by me, slowly, each pausing at various signs, reading them, performing a sort of Stations of the Cross along a postmodern Via Dolorosa. An old man, huddled against the massive, imposing fence, his long white hair and flowing beard tangled around his weary face, played an old silver flute, its dulcet tones reaching out and up, Amazing Grace trembling in my ears. He was crying in each breath.

I became quietly indignant (I was too humbled to be truly self-righteous) at those tourists from "far-away" who posed for digital cameras. And I was miffed, though only mildly, by the hawker silently moving through the crowd with a photo album, 9/11 pictures for sale, though numerous postings declared that such sacrilege was strictly forbidden. But I could forgive all this, for grief and horror do strange things to people. The abundance of cameras reminded me of a funeral I went to last spring, where the family of the 39-year-old father killed in a tragic accident gathered at the funeral parlor before the burial so that portraits could be taken around the open casket. My friend, the owner of the parlor, told me that it "happens all the time." Grief does strange things indeed.

I strolled north, stopping frequently. A young woman next to me, her back to the scene as she waited to cross Church - heading toward the Millenium Hilton - blurted into her cell phone, "I am going to get SO f***ed up tonight!" I moved away from her and closer to the fence, admitting to myself, a little sadly perhaps, that the world is indeed a very diverse place. The brown-haired woman to my right stared in disbelief westward, her lips trembling, tears on her cheeks. She wasn't thinking about getting "f***ed up." She was grieving for those who no longer could.

But there was one thing that was physically surprising to me, and beyond the scope of my imagination. It was that, with all the buildings surrounding the site, with the highest to the north, east and south, it was if I was INSIDE something, like a temple, cathedral or sanctuary. What happened on September 11 in New York was literally IN New York; with walls echoing sounds like the Whispering Gallery in St. Paul's Cathedral. I could see the Twin Towers, their heads poking through the ceiling of New York, and I could hear sounds. Sounds unbearable.

Later, I spoke with a woman who witnessed nearly everything on September 11. She told me that she was in the shower of her 23rd floor apartment on Liberty (the southwest corner) when the first plane smashed into the North Tower. She confessed that that she didn't realize what was happening until she was drying herself off. She said she heard a roar of jet engines overhead (the second plane), and then, echoing throughout her house, the sound of thousands of people screaming. (I think I can hear that sound right now.) And I know it was one of the sounds I could still hear trembling in the faint murmurs of the buildings surrounding Ground Zero. The walls do speak. And they speak sorrowfully. (The woman, a Manhattan lawyer I fortuitously met on the train home, told me that she was never able to return to her apartment after closing the door to it just before the towers fell. It was essentially uninhabitable, at least for her. And she told me her entire harrowing story: the dust-cloud filled with glass particles; the people screaming and pressing in the dark, the leaping into a boat on the Hudson, a thrown puppy, the vomiting, the uncertainty about more attacks, and so much more.)

But at the end of my too-short visit to Ground Zero, I could not shake from my mind the street sign, Church and Liberty. For Osama bin Laden attacked America - at least according to his own fatwa - because of its "Christian" infidelity (and its support and alliance with infidel Jews) and the liberty both synagogue and church provide. And it was America's liberties, our very freedoms, he turned against each of us: our freedom of travel, our easy borders, our freedom to build, and work in, tall buildings; our freedom to believe in God and liberty, or not. This is our vacant lot: that our virtues were turned against us by a man and men too impotent to build a nation, too weak to fill it with soldiers and weapons and wealth and commerce and hope; and too poor to attack us with something created by the superiority of their own vision. No, they attacked us with our own virtues, turned into weapons against us. They did not attack us with their virtues, but with their own spiteful vice. And for a moment, we staggered.

This morning, though far from New York, I still stand at the corner of Church and Liberty. I look up and understand: This is the World Trade Center. And I ask myself, "What world are you willing to trade?" My enemy has already asked that question, and he has shown me his answer. And now I give him mine: I am not trading.

Yesterday I walked through New York wearing a T-Shirt my wife gave to me two years ago. It reads on the front, in small print, "July 4, 1776: Remember Why." On the back, in quiet letters, it reads, "Live Free." I was amazed at how many people looked at my simple message as I passed through subway lines or strolled The Mall in Central Park. It is a good message.

Remember why.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Ground Zero, World Trade Center, wtc, Fourth of July, Independence day, Liberty, Osama bin Laden, 9/11, New York City, Manhattan

How Did Glenn Beck Get So Threatening?

I am watching -- not without wincing and cringing and even from afar -- Glenn Beck's "sting" operation of the Baltimore chapter of ACORN, the community organizing group committed, allegedly, to democracy and social justice. Have you seen this bit of undercover work? Have you seen these video clips? [Update, 9.11.09: I now see that Mr. Beck was not the principal force behond this exposé. It seems a young journalist named Hannah Giles took the initiative.]

If these clips are trustworthy and authentic, then what does this mean for America? If they are staged and inauthentic, what do they mean for Glenn Beck?

But I ask: What explains Glenn Beck's meteoric rise? What explains his reach into the soul and psyche of countless conservative Americans, and what explains his reach into the psyches of finger-wagging, head-shaking, snickering leftists who abhor him?

And what does any of this portend for Mr. Beck and his family? And what does this portend for Fox News? Clearly, he has become a force to be reckoned with, no? Do I have this wrong? Was he not cited, for example, as the force which led to the resignation of Mr. Van Jones? Indeed, he was. If his larger theme is true -- that the Obama administration is a thugocracy rooted in bad-ass Chicago "politics" -- then what is he exposing himself to? Or is he just more of the same sort of theater: is he a man getting fabulously rich and famous exploiting fears, peddling conspiracy theories, and sounding the "red scare" alarm?

And Speaking Of Fox Television...

Another bone-headed decision by executives at Fox TV was to sign with Don Imus for a simulcast of his morning radio show on Fox News' Business Channel. The show begins Oct. 5.

I was an ardent defender of Mr. Imus when he made his now infamous racial gaffe on radio two years ago; I freely admit I was wrong to defend him at all. Not because his gaffe was all that shameful. I've heard far worse from people who are not so thoroughly denounced. I was wrong because Mr. Imus sows confusion and absurdity. He is all about finding humor in disillusionment; he takes pleasure in what amounts to something awfully close to nihilism.

Unfortunately, time will not permit me to enlarge upon this right now. I will hold my ground, however, and simply say that Fox News has made a mistake.

That's just my opinion.

The End of American Idol

The choice of Ellen Degeneres as the replacement of Paula Abdul on Fox's wildly successful "American Idol" is such a stupid one it suggests sabotage.

Without one ounce of shame I admit to having become a very enthusiastic fan of American Idol. I not only watched the last season from the very start of auditions, I VOTED, yes, voted, for my favorites as the show progressed. One night I even voted -- yes, I admit it -- fifteen times. And while Lil Rounds, who I spotted in her first audition, was my favorite (and I believe she was ridiculously mistreated by the judges), I grew to like several other contestants (and, without a doubt, I saw immediately that Adam Lambert is like a human fireworks display -- a non-stop grand finale). Yes, I admit it. I am an American Idol geek.

But the appeal of Idol was largely due to the fact that, prior to their appearances on Idol, the judges were hardly well-known, at least to most Americans. Paula Abdul had seemingly disappeared from the American pop-scene before finding the spotlight in Idol; Randy Jackson was what, a one-time bass player for Journey, and Simon Cowell was hardly a household name. It was their smallness, their sort of "from the margins" characteristics, that made them so appealing. And the newest judge -- what's her name and where's she from? -- was effective precisely because she was hardly known.

Of course, Paula Adbul, often ditzy, seemingly drugged, and somewhat incoherent, at least in prior seasons, actually became a far better judge with Kara DioGuardi at her side: this past season, Paula was really rather good. And let fans not forget her chemistry with Simon Cowell: they made the panel rather fun. Paula's rambling, non-sequitur driven kindness was offset by Simon's terse frankness, and that made for good TV.

OK. Enough waxing nostalgic for a show that's hardly that old. But Ellen Degeneres' presence as a judge is so utterly incomprehensible, I can't imagine this is not some effort to bring the show to an end. Ms. Degeneres is really rather dopey. Sorry, but she is. Yes, she is funny -- at times -- but she is no performer; she has no experience in shaping the pop-music world (excepting, of course, the fact that she has live acts on her talk show every day, or nearly so). But what does she bring other than her obvious narcissism (yes, she is a narcissist)? Isn't everything really all about her (isn't her comedy built on her self-image)? What choreography talent, or musical talent, or production talent does she actually bring?

I wish I could explore this more. In haste I can only say that American Idol has lost this fan.

But perhaps it lost me earlier. I had read rumors that the show is not as honest and pure as we are led to believe; that much is scripted, that outcomes are fudged, that the votes are not honest. Insiders have tried to blow a whistle. But perhaps such rumors are born of those resentful losers who fell short and now lash out. Perhaps. My own suspicions, I admit, were raised several times this year when contestants who were clearly WILDLY talented were dismissed by judges and voted off summarily. And when Lil Rounds was asked by Simon Cowell -- AFTER he had met her and heard her many times -- what "sort of name is 'Lil' ... is it short for 'little'"? I felt the deck was stacked.

Regardless, the Ellen Degeneres choice is absurd on its face.

Thus ends a good show.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Don't Mention It: Mr. Obama's Van Jones Mistake

Yesterday morning I was listening to two progressive radio personalities out of Vermont talk about the Van Jones resignation; Mr. Jones resigned "under the cover of darkness", as they say, at about midnight -- seriously -- early Sunday morning.

What was just delicious is that these two personalities -- both seemingly omniscient and righteous on all things political -- pretended not to know the name of the "guy" who resigned. They feigned stumbling over his name: to know his name would be to admit he was important, that the whole thing was relevant, significant, interesting. Their pretended ignorance trivialized something not one whit trivial to conservatives, or anyone with a thinking brain.

And if they did not truly know Mr. Jones' name, or what the issues were, then they have no right being on the air. None.

Van Jones' resignation should be huge news, but it isn't. Even the major news outlets ignored it until he had, finally, resigned. Amazingly, even the New York Times could not muster a defense of Mr. Jones beforehand; few, if any, trundled out the "Mr. Jones is black and he is being vilified by racists" news angle. No, Mr. Jones just quietly came and quietly went away ... under the cover of darkness.

What a pernicious darkness it is.

Perhaps the media ignored him because he could be used as a distraction so something else could be pushed upon the American people. Perhaps Mr. Jones was a bone thrown to the Republican dogs whose jaws hunger for something on which to gnaw; and while chewing on that bone, perhaps the critics of Mr. Obama will not discern the burglar sneaking in behind the house.

Perhaps. But I will not explore such a conspiracy. Instead, I will note that Mr. Obama did himself no favors by hiring, and then NOT firing, Mr. Jones. Mr. Obama may not have been at his best when he appointed Mr. Jones as "Green Jobs Czar", but surely he could have been far closer to his best by coming out and denouncing Mr. Jones' demonstrably extremist views. Mr. Jones should have been immediately and decisively fired; to accept his resignation is to accept him -- "in better circumstances." Mr. Jones' resignation should not have even been an option: he should have been out of the White House before he could have offered his insane "if I have offended anyone, then I am sorry" statements. Mr. Obama has tacitly aligned himself with Mr. Jones simply by not denouncing him at every turn. It's a shame.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

"We Have The Votes": What Comes After Mr. Obama's Speech To Congress

Barack Obama is right now addressing the United States Congress solely to justify what comes next: The Democratic Party in power is going to cram through Congress a universal health care project, and this despite overwhelming American opposition to that project. Yes, most Americans support reform, but not the kind sought by the left-ward Democrats; at best, Americans want reform of health insurance, and not of the federal government itself. But tonight you are hearing why Mr. Obama and his party are going to force legislation through the Congress and onto his desk. This is about power, leverage, control. It is not about justice, and it surely is not about health. And it is ultimately about Barack Obama's narcissism: "I will not accept anything other than what I demand."

Of course, the table was set some time ago. Do you remember the stolen election in Iran earlier this summer? Remember how Mr. Obama did not forcefully denounce the Iran regime's totalitarian arts; remember his reluctance to side with the democratic souls who marched in the streets, many of whom were arrested, with some even dying for their convictions?

Remember as well this president's absurd remarks about the crisis in Honduras; Democrats, many in the American media, and the Obama administration spoke about the Honduran crisis either in terms of political injustice or that a coup had occurred. Of course, it was the ousted Honduran president who had been attempting a coup: using his democratic election as a mandate that he could change the country's constitution, he over-reached, and was removed from office by every legal means the Honduran constitution had at its disposal. And recall that leftists -- all of whom support Mr. Obama and many of whom are in his government or in Congress -- applaud the sort of "democratic" bullying of a Hugo Chavez or the tyranny of a Fidel Castro.

The theme, then, is rather clear, and it is consistently presented: Forcing legislation is OK with the Obama camp. I have already heard, like you have no doubt heard, countless leftists say that the universal, single-payer model of health care should be pushed through because "we won, we're in power, and we have the votes." Though no single-payer type plan -- the kind that Mr. Obama and Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi ULTIMATELY seek -- was ever presented to the United States electorate during Mr. Obama's campaign to "win" the White House, Democrats still believe that the "we won" mentality is somehow not only fair and reasonable, but democratic, and thus justifies forcing health care reform onto the very people who largely oppose it because the country faces dire consequences if it "does nothing."

Mr. Obama will brook no other options but his own. He said so this evening; I heard him myself. It is about him: He is the leader.

You are not. So much for di mäk' rə sē < demos, 'the people' + kratia, 'rule'.

Peace.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Mr. Obama's Problem, In A Nutshell

"Obama and the Left: The lesson of the rise and fall of Van Jones" sums up Mr. Obama's problems in a few short paragraphs. In particular, the editorial's last paragraph is a perfectly accurate summary of the Obama term thus far [bold added for emphasis]:

No President is responsible for all of the views of his appointees, but the rise and fall of Mr. [Van] Jones is one more warning that Mr. Obama can't succeed on his current course of governing from the left. He is running into political trouble not because his own message is unclear, or because his opposition is better organized. Mr. Obama is falling in the polls because last year he didn't tell the American people that the "change" they were asked to believe in included trillions of dollars in new spending, deferring to the most liberal Members of Congress, a government takeover of health care, and appointees with the views of Van Jones.

Van Jones Quits (Though Everyone Wanted Him To Stay)

Incredulity doesn't even begin to describe my reaction to Van Jones' comments offered in the wake of his resignation as Barack Obama's "Green Jobs Czar." Mr. Jones, who came under fire for a whole host of reasons ranging from his self-description as a communist, his support of 9-11 Truther paranoia, and his unifying theory that Republicans are "***holes," asserted that he had been "inundated with calls from across the political spectrum urging me to stay and fight." One wonders what Mr. Jones, the allegedly brilliant progressive Yale Law School graduate, could possibly mean. Is this -- really -- the best that "the best and brightest" can posit as evidence he is a victim of a "vicious smear campaign" by opponents of health-care reform?

How narrow must Mr. Jones' sense of the "political spectrum" be if he believes he has support "across the political spectrum"? Surely he has support from socialists to communists, from environmental extremists -- "The Earth is god" -- to everybody to their left. But surely he did not get calls from Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, or Dick Cheney to "stay and fight", unless such folks on the right found pleasure in seeing another Obama appointee hurt the Obama brand. Yes, yes, by all means stay, Mr. Jones. You ARE great theater, and you drive Republican poll numbers northward every second of the day.

(Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Jones is only capable of perceiving the political spectrum vertically.)

Some readers might know that Glenn Beck, the radio and TV commentator who has a potent show on Fox News, has hammered on most if not all of the Obama czars, particularly Mr. Jones. Mr. Beck, who in a conversation with colleagues averred that he believed Mr. Obama is a "racist" (a statement Mr. Beck did qualify, to a degree), found himself the victim of a rather massive boycott: he lost several key sponsors as a result of pressure from groups sympathetic to Mr. Obama's regime. But note this gem from the Associated Press story about Mr. Jones' resignation:

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck's show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

Sounds like the left-wing of the political spectrum really helped their Man in the White House by going after Mr. Beck. Wow, boycotts really DO work! Speak truth to power, indeed!

Faux News, as the left calls Fox News, is obviously so irrelevant. At least that's what I've heard from the broadest possible sample taken from across the entire political spectrum.

More proof that the greatest presidency throughout eternity is finding it hard to walk on water. Next for the Obama administration: the appointment of a miracles czar.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.