Our Pusillanimous Commander In Chief

Barack Obama, the US Commander in Chief, chose cowardice today in his back-pedaling statements on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Mr. Obama did not manifest any of the manly qualities one expects of a commander, nor did he show any of the courage common to the average police officer. Refusing to apologize, the unrepentant commander chose instead more obfuscation, and more hair-splitting, mind-numbing rhetoric. What we get is a person who believes, at best, that he "could have calibrated" his language "differently." (Please note that he says he could have, not should have.) What we are left with is a man safe-guarding his pride, his apparent infallibility and popularity; the very keys to his power.

Somehow, Barack Obama expects us to reconcile his contradictory statements:

Proposition 1: "...the Cambridge police acted stupidly..." (July 22)
Proposition 2: "It doesn't make sense, with all the problems we have, with all the problems we have out there, to arrest a guy in his own home if he is not causing a serious disturbance." (July 23)
Proposition 3: "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sergeant Crowley, specifically." (July 24) [bold added for emphasis]

I am sorry, but Mr. Obama is lying. Of course he meant to malign the Cambridge police in general and Sgt. James Crowley specifically. How do we know this? Perhaps because he maligned the sergeant and the Cambridge police department in his statement of "regret" offered today:

I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. [bold added for emphasis]

Note the language! Note what this man thinks! He continues to believe "that there WAS an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his house" (professor Gates was NOT PULLED); this is a statement of fact presented by Mr. Obama. But then he offers -- again, abusing his power in order to protect his friend -- a statement of probability: "I believe... that Professor Gates PROBABLY overreacted as well."

This is not a man of principle. This is no leader. This is despotic and reckless: this is a man protecting his self-image, i.e., his power, who is also protecting his friend. In other words, and I can't say this enough, this is another ABUSE OF POWER.

And then this coward -- sorry! -- tosses a red-herring into the whole debacle:

The fact that this has become such a big issue is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of society. Whether I were black or white I think me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to something constructive — as opposed to negative — is part of my portfolio.

Ah, hah! So this is not about his ABSURD, RECKLESS comments; this is not about his abuse of power, or his abuse of the office of president, or that he is using his presidency to protect a friend! No, no. All of us who are reacting to his despotic, arrogant, self-aggrandizing abuse of the Oval Office are really struggling with race!

Such a dire, desperate lie has probably never before been uttered by a president. This man clearly and undeniably made a huge blunder; he has shown he is either incompetent in handling the law or he is equivocating about the law in some effort to draw all power unto himself. But instead of taking RESPONSIBILITY LIKE A MAN, he sloughs it all off onto us, onto America. It's America's fault, for we are still struggling, mired in racial division and all he did was highlight that divide. This is a "teachable" moment, and his pedagogy is just part of his "portfolio."

What crap!

Shame on this man!

Let me say this WITHOUT ambiguity or equivocation: The issue at hand HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE! NOTHING!

And what is that issue? It is that the president of the United States has purposely abused his office and power to protect a friend and besmirch an entire police force. For this he should -- and must -- resign.

(And this is not the ONLY issue at work here. But that will have to wait for another day.)

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Red Flag = Cowardice: You Better Watch What You Read Here

If you look at the blue navigation bar that spans across this blog, a feature provided by Blogger, you will notice that there is a little flag. The flag on your screen should be a lighter shade of blue than the navigation bar itself. Curiously, the flag on my page, since I am the owner of this blog, is no longer blue at all. It is now bright red. This red flag indicates that some reader (or readers) has found the content of this website "objectionable" and has passed his or her concerns along to Blogger. That this has happened has made me rather sad, not because I have been caught in some sort of nefarious activity, but because it indicates the sort of world in which we live: a paranoid and cowardly one. One would be hard pressed to find a person who has left a comment throughout my 365 posts (or so) who has voiced such alarm; there has been very little controversy at Contratimes, despite this blog's title. I can only wish that I had had a chance to speak to the person or persons involved. But I can't: they've scurried off on their jolly way, certain they've done all humanity a favor.

But what is alarming is what this COULD portend. I encourage you to read the warnings for yourself. You see, if enough people descend on this site and click that flag, not only will Blogger paste up a warning on the front-sheet of this site, it will cease listing it. In other words, this is about censorship. It is about attempting to silence a voice on the Internet; to silence someone using the medium which is supposed to be the most democratic engine in history. But we all know it is hardly that. While I have never once made an attempt to silence a single person on the Internet, my work is deemed objectionable, and someone hopes to silence me. I pose some sort of threat, though there is not a bit of censorship in me. Imagine.

Of course, I am probably being paranoid.

But perhaps I am being added to the List of Banned Blogs in the New Inquisition. Perhaps the delicate ears I've offended are right-wing Christian fundamentalists, for we know that no decent, liberally-minded, freedom-loving, free-thinking intellectual could EVER find offense at free speech. Yes, that is it: I am being persecuted by religious zealots. At least, that is the only apparent explanation for the New Puritanism that deigns to flag this site as offensive.

Perhaps there is a way around this. No doubt I may move to my own server and be done with Blogger and the threats of hidden visitors who haven't the courage, or the intellectual vigor, to challenge me to my very plain face. Or is it that I have intimidated them to cower in the upper left hand corner of their mouse-pad, clicking in their boots? Who knows? But please note that if this site is deemed objectionable, then you, dear reader, are treading on very dangerous ground. Besides, they might flag you next. No. They WILL flag you next.

So much for democracy. And freedom.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Blogger, Censorship, New Puritanism, Free speech, Red Flag, Flagged